Unjust Enrichment and the Price of Care: Bernadette Rogers’s Claim in Rogers v Wills [2025]
8th July, 2025
Practitioners will be aware that someone who cares for an elderly person may want some account to be provided for the value of the care, or at the very least their expenses, sometimes out of the person's estate following their death.
Usually, this can be decided sensibly between the beneficiaries of the Deceased who recognise the ‘value’ of the care and are happy for recompense to be made.
Sadly, there was no such agreement in the case of Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch). The High Court therefore faced a compelling question: can a daughter recover reasonable remuneration from her mother’s estate for the hands-on care she provided in the final years of her life as a legal right?
Background
Bernadette Rogers, a retired nurse, had cared for her mother, Sheila Wills, from the autumn of 2017 until her mother’s death in April 2020. Sheila, who was suffering from dementia, expressed discomfort with live-in carers in Norfolk. Bernadette, ‘Bernie’ to her siblings, invited her mother to Bristol. Sheila agreed on terms that she wanted to pay her way. No sums were mentioned though.
During her mother’s final two and a half years, Bernadette was the principal caregiver. Following Sheila’s death, she withdrew approximately £100,000 from her mother’s accounts as “recompense.” This led to accusations of theft, but a jury acquitted her under criminal law.
Claim
When Bernadette pursued a civil claim against the estate, she advanced two causes of action:
- A contractual claim, asserting an enforceable agreement for “reasonable remuneration” under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
- An alternative claim in unjust enrichment, contending that the estate benefited at her expense without legal justification.
The Claim in Contract
Courts are generally reluctant to view family arrangements as legally binding contracts on the basis that there is no intention to create relations. However, HHJ Matthews stated that this was not always the case. He cited the example of family members giving each other presents at Christmas time, where there is clearly an intention for the transfer of legal ownership in the gifts. On the facts HHJ Matthews found that Sheila had the capacity to enter into a contract and that there was an intention to form legal relations. The evidence cited was:
- Sheila’s explicit insistence that Bernadette be paid “properly”.
- The long term, intensive nature of care—far surpassing mere familial help. The help provided was an important long-term living arrangement.
- All the elements of a contract for Sheila to be cared for were present. The claimant and Sheila were in agreement on what was to be done, and, although no specific price was fixed, it was plainly a contract for services at a reasonable price.
As such, falling under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, the court recognised a contract for services. Though the price remained undetermined, Sheila’s obligation to pay a reasonable sum formed the substantive basis of the liability. Contract law had long since recognised that a contract to sell a service for a price that was unascertained at the time was valid provided a price can be ascertained when needed.
HHJ Mathews stated obiter that even if it were the case that Sheila privately did not intend to enter a contract with the claimant, the matter was nevertheless to be judged objectively, on the basis of what the words and conduct of Sheila would have conveyed to a reasonable person in the claimant’s position.
Unjust Enrichment
Even if a contract could not be conclusively established, Bernadette’s restitution claim stood strong. The court’s analysis of unjust enrichment reveals a trilogy of elements:
- Enrichment of Sheila’s estate at the claimant’s expense.
- At the claimant’s expense—Bernadette conferred care, shelter, food, and personal sacrifice.
- Unjustness— in circumstances where Sheila accepted those benefits, having the opportunity to decline them, and knowing that they were expected to be paid for (free acceptance).
This case underlines that unpaid services provided at the express or implied request of the deceased can form the basis for a claim in unjust enrichment.
Further, a statement of payment for care—even made informally—can constitute the core of a binding agreement.
What would the position have been in different circumstances, say Sheila did not expect to pay for the services, but that her estate was in a position to do so – say Sheila was asset rich but cash poor? Would it still be unjust not to make payment to Bernadette? It will be interesting to see how the case-law develops.
If you would like to know more, contact Martin Woodford or get in touch with our expert Probate team.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
