Can you be paid for looking after your mum, if nobody ever agreed a price? The High Court has said yes. In Rogers v Wills, a daughter cared for her mother for two and a half years. Her mother insisted she should be “paid properly”, but nobody ever named a figure. After a criminal trial and three civil judgments, the daughter was awarded £127,500, plus interest, from her mother’s estate.
This case matters to anyone making a will. It shows how an informal promise made late in life can become a debt that your estate has to pay before anything reaches the people named in your will. It also shows how a gap between what you say and what you write down can split a family.
Background
Sheila Wills was born in 1927. She and her husband John had nine children, six of whom survived them both. John died in 2012, and Sheila lived on alone in the family home in Norfolk. In 2015 she made a professionally drawn will. It named her son Andrew as executor and left everything equally between her surviving children.
By her 90th birthday in 2017 Sheila was lonely and forgetful. That September neighbours found her wandering in the road, confused. She went to stay with her daughter Bern in Bristol. Bern had worked as an auxiliary nurse and started nurse training, and her husband Jon is a retired GP. It was only meant to be a stop-gap.
In late October Bern took her mother home and arranged to meet a home care agency, so that carers could come in. Sheila refused. She wanted to go back to Bristol with Bern, on one condition. In the judge’s words, Sheila “wanted to pay her way”, and Bern would be “paid properly” for looking after her. Bern agreed. Nobody discussed the amount. Soon after, Sheila told Jon: “I don’t want charity. You must make sure that [Bern] is paid for looking after me.”
Someone had to be with Sheila day and night from the start, and in September 2018 she was diagnosed with vascular dementia. Her health got steadily worse. Payment came up again and again in family messages, but no figure was ever agreed. In April 2020 Sheila fell on the stairs and broke several ribs. The day before she died, Bern told Andrew she still had not taken any money for her mother’s care. The judge found that Andrew replied “Just take it”, and that Andrew honestly no longer remembered saying so.
Sheila died on 19 April 2020. Over the following month Bern moved £100,000 from her mother’s accounts into her own, without telling her siblings. She then sent the family an invoice: 900 days of care at £150 a day, £135,000 in all. Andrew accused her of fraud. The bank took the money back, and Bern was prosecuted for theft. In October 2022 a jury found her not guilty. In 2023 she sued the estate for the value of her care.
Chronology
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| December 2015 | Sheila makes her will. Andrew is executor, and the estate is shared equally. |
| 13 September 2017 | Sheila goes to stay with Bern in Bristol. |
| Late October 2017 | Sheila refuses carers at home and insists Bern is “paid properly”. No figure is agreed. |
| 2 November 2017 | Sheila returns to Bristol on those terms. |
| 15 February 2018 | Sheila signs lasting powers of attorney appointing Bern and Andrew jointly. |
| 11 September 2018 | Sheila is diagnosed with vascular dementia. |
| 18 April 2020 | Andrew tells Bern “Just take it”. |
| 19 April 2020 | Sheila dies. |
| 21 April to 21 May 2020 | Bern transfers £100,000 from Sheila’s accounts to her own. |
| 2 June 2020 | Bern invoices the family: 900 days at £150 a day, £135,000. |
| 24 October 2022 | A jury at Bristol Crown Court finds Bern not guilty of theft. |
| 26 May 2023 | Bern issues her civil claim against the estate. |
| 6 June 2025 | Judgment one: Sheila made a binding contract to pay a reasonable price. |
| 7 July 2025 | Judgment two: Andrew must pay Bern’s costs of that trial, with £75,685.50 on account. |
| 25 August 2026 | Judgment three: £127,500 plus interest. |
The three judgments
The liability judgment. HHJ Paul Matthews decided whether the estate owed Bern anything at all. He held that Sheila had made a binding contract to pay a reasonable price for her care. If he was wrong about that, the estate had to pay anyway, under a fallback claim called unjust enrichment. He urged the family to settle the amount, saying the case “cries out for mediation rather than litigation”.
The costs judgment. Andrew asked the judge to wait until the amount was known before deciding who paid the legal costs. The judge refused, because whatever the figure was, “it will not be nothing, or purely nominal”. Andrew was ordered to pay Bern’s costs of the trial, with £75,685.50 to be paid on account. Those costs were Andrew’s personal liability. Whether he could recover them from the estate was a separate question that the judge did not decide.
The valuation judgment. The family could not agree a figure. Bern still claimed £135,000. Andrew said Sheila had needed two or three hours of help a day, worth about £17,000. District Judge Wales accepted Bern’s rate of £150 a day in full. But he counted from 2 November 2017, when the contract was made, which gave 850 days. The total was £127,500, plus interest.
The law
The judge began with a warning. The court decides legal rights, not who behaved better: “The moral position of any of the parties or their siblings is simply irrelevant.” Three legal questions then decided the case.
Did Sheila have capacity to make a contract? That question is governed by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is shown that they lack it. Capacity is judged decision by decision, at the time. A diagnosis such as dementia is not enough on its own to show that someone lacks it.
Can there be a contract with no price? Yes, if there is a binding agreement in the first place. The judge said “a contract for a ‘reasonable’ price is a perfectly good contract”. Parliament says the same. Under section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, where a contract for a service does not fix the price, there is an implied term that the customer will pay “a reasonable charge”.
Can a promise within a family be legally binding? Many people assume promises between relatives never count in law. The judge said plainly: “This is wrong.” It is always a question of the evidence, and the family relationship is only one part of the picture. The famous case of Balfour v Balfour (1919), about a husband’s promised allowance to his wife, does not mean family promises can never bind. Families make binding arrangements all the time, such as loans, tenancies and jobs in the family business.
Applying the law to the facts
Capacity. Sheila had made a professionally drawn will in 2015, and in late 2017 she was still making her own decisions. Even Andrew accepted under cross-examination that she then had capacity to make a contract. Her later diagnosis did not change that. The judge also pointed out that making a lasting power of attorney “is not even evidence of, let alone proves, a lack of capacity”.
The family promise. Sheila was not making a vague, kind remark. She did not want charity, and she insisted to several people that Bern be paid “properly”. The judge compared it with paying a care home or hiring carers. He saw no good reason to treat it differently because the carer was her daughter:
This was not a short-term family or social treat by one family member to another. It was an important long-term living arrangement, involving hard work and unsocial hours, and impacting considerably on the contractor’s existing lifestyle, including preventing her from earning money in other ways.
HHJ Paul Matthews, Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch), para 240
Andrew’s own words helped Bern too. After Sheila died, he had written to her: “You are due payment for Mum’s care and this has never been disputed.”
The amount. Andrew’s low figure rested on one message in which Bern had suggested her mother might manage at home with a couple of hours’ help a day. Bern said she put it that way so as not to frighten her mother, and the judge called the idea “hopelessly over-optimistic”. The fair comparison was a live-in carer, on hand day and night. The evidence put round-the-clock agency care at about £218,000 over the period, and live-in care at about £131,000 before extra charges. Bern’s £150 a day also covered food, a room and travel. It “falls comfortably within the range of reasonable remuneration”, the judge said.
What this means for your will
- A promise to pay for care can bind your estate. Sheila’s will shared everything equally. But her promise to Bern became a debt of £127,500 plus interest, and the estate had to pay it. If you are being cared for by one of your children, think about how your will and any promise you make fit together.
- Agree a figure, and write it down. Everyone knew Sheila wanted to pay. Nobody knew how much. A clear written agreement, made while she could make the decision, could have reduced the risk of this dispute.
- Your executor can end up personally liable for costs. Andrew was ordered to pay Bern’s legal costs of the first trial, and those costs were his personal liability. Whether an executor can recover them from the estate is a separate question. Choose executors who can work together, and tell them your wishes.
- A lasting power of attorney ends when you die. It ends automatically. From then on your executors deal with your estate, not your attorneys. Bern moved the money after her mother had died, so the LPA could not authorise it.
- Keep evidence of capacity. Sheila’s capacity was presumed, and there was evidence to support it. In a closer case, a record made at the time can show that you understood what you were agreeing to.
The judge called the case “a real tragedy”. A loving family ended up in a criminal court and three civil hearings over a promise that everyone agreed had been made.
If someone in your family is caring for you, or you are caring for a parent, it is worth making sure your will says what you mean. Make your will online today, or book a call if your situation is more complicated. For a detailed legal case note with paragraph references to all three judgments, see Paid to care for Mum: what Rogers v Wills means for family carers on Capacity Vault.
This article is general information, not legal advice. If you are caring for a relative, or are worried about a claim against an estate, please get advice on your own situation.
Sources
- Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch), the liability judgment, 6 June 2025
- Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1711 (Ch), the costs judgment, 7 July 2025
- Rogers v Wills [2026] EWHC 2231 (Ch), the valuation judgment, 25 August 2026
- Mental Capacity Act 2005, section 1 and section 2
- Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, section 15
- GOV.UK: End your lasting power of attorney
