A woman who provided round-the-clock care for her elderly mother will be compensated £127,500 from the family estate, a High Court judge has concluded.
Former auxiliary nurse, Bernadette Rogers, cared for her mother, who had dementia, at the home she shared with her retired GP husband in Bristol, for more than two years, from September 2017 to her death in April 2020.
Her mother had agreed that Rogers “was to be paid properly for caring for her over an extended period” and multiple messages shown in court from Rogers’ five siblings also suggested they thought she should be paid for providing live-in care for their mother.
After Rogers took £100,000 from her late mother’s estate in 2020, however, she was reported to the police for fraud and theft. A criminal trial at Bristol Crown Court in 2022 found Rogers “not guilty”.
The dispute continued into the civil courts, however, and in February 2025 a high Court Judge [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch) ruled that Rogers had entered into an informal contract with her mother for payment of her care, and the estate was ordered to pay Rogers’ legal fees.
Rogers’ bid to recover £135,000 in both contract and unjust enrichment against her brother, Andrew Wills, the executor of their late mother Ursula “Sheila” Wills’s estate, in Rogers v Wills [2026] EWHC 2231 (Ch), following trials at Bristol Civil Justice Centre, has succeeded, as seen in a judgment published in August 2026.
The judge held that “‘the starting point for assessing a reasonable charge is likely to be a comparison of the probable cost of obtaining the same or a similar service in the market place, without discount for income tax and national insurance”.
District Judge Wales worked out that Rogers was owed £127,500 for the 850 days of care she provided, describing it as “a reasonable contractual charge for the services she in fact provided”.
Judge Wales continued: “Sheila entered into a binding agreement under which the claimant was to be paid properly for caring for her over an extended period. The care ultimately provided was comprehensive and demanding. It included constant supervision, extensive support with the activities of daily living, the management of multiple significant medical conditions, dementia care, personal care, the provision of board and lodgings, transportation, companionship, activities, and during periods of acute illness and at the end of her life, care of a particularly intensive and personal nature.”
The judge said the equivalent care and support from a commercial care setting “would have been substantially greater than the amount claimed”.
He added: “Standing back and making the broad evaluative assessment required in a case of this kind, I am satisfied that a daily charge of £150, amounting to £127,500 over the 850-day period of the contract, falls comfortably within the range of reasonable remuneration which the parties must have objectively be taken to have intended. Having regard to the evidence as a whole, the claimant has satisfied the burden of proof and her claim succeeds.
“For those reasons the claimant’s claim succeeds, and she shall have judgment in the sum of £127,500, plus interest.”
The judge remarked that, even allowing for the pressures of the trial, he did not find either the defendant [Andrew Wills] or Maryanne Dickinson, another of their siblings, “to be either composed or reasonably objective in giving their evidence”.
He added: “The defendant’s anger that the claimant should seek payment for caring for their mother was palpable at several points during his evidence, including an emotional outburst in which he accused the claimant of ‘money-grabbing’. It was clear to me that he regarded the claimant’s claim to payment as morally repugnant, and this view informed much of his evidence. In my judgment the defendant had very little first-hand evidence to give the court concerning the extent and quality of the claimant’s care of Sheila, and he admitted in cross-examination that his knowledge was limited to what he was told at the time.”
The court heard that Sheila required continuous “supervision and vigilance”. While she was living with Rogers and her husband, one of them had to be in the house with Sheila at all times, and Sheila often required reassurance or attention at night, including help with personal care and toileting.
Cathryn Culverhouse, a Partner at law firm DMH Stallard, said: “This case acknowledges that an informal promise between mother and daughter, with no price agreed, could create a binding obligation for payment. In such circumstances, the carer becomes a creditor of the estate who is due to be paid before the beneficiaries receive their entitlement.
“Care delivered by relatives is often relied on in claims for financial provision in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 as to a reason why they should receive greater provision. However, these claims must be brought within six months of a grant of probate being obtained.”
Emma Bryson, senior associate at Michelmores, said: “The judgment reflects the reality that some family members make significant personal and financial sacrifices to provide care which might otherwise have required costly professional support, and in appropriate cases it may be fair for the estate to recognise that contribution. Whilst each case will turn on its own facts, the decision may encourage more claims by family members who have provided significant care without formal arrangements. There may, however, be concerns about the potential for disputes where the deceased’s intentions or capacity are uncertain, particularly where claims are advanced only after death and the available evidence is limited.”
