The Claimant provided continuous care for her late mother at the mother’s home for a period of two and a half years. She asserted that she expected to be paid for these caregiving services.
Following the mother’s death in 2020, under the terms of the late mother’s will, her estate was to be divided equally among her five surviving children, with the Claimant’s brother (Defendant) being appointed as executor. The Claimant maintained that both the mother and other family members agreed that she would receive reasonable remuneration for her services.
The Claimant brought a claim against the estate, arguing that her years of care were not simply an act of kindness. She argued that these services were only given as a result of her late mother’s agreement to pay.
The Claimant has brought claims in both contract and unjust enrichment, relying on grounds of failure of basis and fee acceptance. The Defendant denies liability, contending that there was neither a binding contract nor any agreed basis for payment.
The court ruled in favour of the Claimant, holding that the mother’s estate was contractually liable to pay a reasonable sum for the caregiving services provided.
The court found that a valid contract had been formed between the Claimant and the deceased, applying the principle of free acceptance. The court therefore implied a contract under which the Claimant provided caregiving services in exchange for reasonable remuneration.
The doctrine of free acceptance applies where a recipient knowingly accepts a benefit, despite having the opportunity to reject it, and it would be unjust for them to retain that benefit without payment. For the principle to operate, the acceptance must be free and voluntary.
Even if no contract had been found, the court determined that the estate had in any event been unjustly enriched by the Claimant’s caregiving services and was required to provide compensation.
The court further rejected arguments that the deceased lacked capacity to enter into a contract at the relevant time.
This judgment underscores a developing judicial approach towards recognising and valuing informal family caregiving arrangements, potentially expanding legal protection for unpaid caregivers.
In Rogers v Wills, HHJ Mathews also offered important guidance on assessing mental capacity where a medical diagnosis is present.
In this case, the mother had been diagnosed with dementia and had been granted a lasting power of attorney. The judge emphasised that a diagnosis of dementia “does not automatically mean that she thereafter ceased to have capacity, or that she did not have capacity earlier than that.”
This illustrates that there is no universal or rigid approach to determining mental capacity. Each case must be assessed on its own facts and circumstances, with consideration given to the individual’s actual abilities at the relevant time, rather than relying solely on a diagnosis.
Our specialist Contentious Trusts and Probate team are here to help if you are concerned about your entitlement in a deceased’s estate. We frequently advise both beneficiaries and personal representatives and have a wealth of experience in working to resolve issues. To contact a member of the team, please click here.
The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.
To contact us, please fill out this form and we will get back in touch as soon as possible. Your personal data will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy which can be found here.
Thank you for your enquiry. We will respond as soon as possible.
