Background
Bernadette Rogers cared for her elderly mother, Ursula Wills, known within the family as Sheila, in Rogers’s Bristol home until Sheila died in April 2020. Sheila suffered from vascular dementia, severe frailty, impaired mobility, recurrent rectal prolapse, and numerous other medical conditions. Rogers provided continuous supervision, personal and dementia care, meals, accommodation, transportation, medication management, companionship, and intensive end-of-life care.
At an earlier liability trial, the court found that Rogers and Sheila had entered into an informal contract under which Sheila would be cared for in Rogers’s home and Rogers would be paid a reasonable price. The present trial concerned quantum only. Rogers sought £150 per day, while Andrew Wills, her brother and the executor of Sheila’s estate, argued for a substantially lower award based on limited daily hours at local-government wage rates.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the closest commercial comparator was a live-in carer available around the clock, rather than a visiting carer working only two or three hours per day. Rogers’s services included constant “overwatch,” extensive assistance with daily living, management of dementia and multiple medical conditions, nighttime support, board and lodging, travel, and particularly demanding care during acute illness and Sheila’s final weeks.
Because the claim was for a contractual debt rather than compensation for gratuitous family care, the court declined to apply a deduction for income tax and National Insurance. Commercial care and nursing-home comparators generally exceeded the amount sought, leaving sufficient allowance for the fact that Rogers’s care was informal and unregulated. The contract began approximately 50 days later than Rogers’s original calculation, however, so the recoverable period was 850 rather than 900 days. The court awarded £127,500, calculated at £150 per day for 850 days, plus interest.
Key Takeaways
- Informal care provided by a family member may be remunerated under a binding contract when the parties objectively intended payment at a reasonable price.
- Reasonable contractual remuneration may be assessed by comparison with the market cost of equivalent services, while accounting for differences between informal family care and regulated commercial care.
- Round-the-clock supervision can constitute full-time care even when the caregiver is not continuously performing physical tasks.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes contractual payment for family care from damages awarded for gratuitous care in personal-injury cases. Where a contract exists, the court may begin with commercial market rates and need not apply the tax-related discount commonly used when valuing gratuitous care.
It also illustrates that courts may take a broad, practical approach to valuing long-term care despite limited formal records, particularly where contemporaneous communications and medical evidence establish the duration, intensity, and value of the services.