Bernadette Rogers v Andrew Wills

Where a family member provides care under an enforceable contract at an agreed but unspecified price, the court assesses a reasonable contractual charge by objectively ascertaining the parties’ intentions. The likely market cost of the same or a similar service is a useful starting point, but the assessment is broad and fact-sensitive. It is not confined to a stop-watch calculation of physical assistance and may reflect continuous supervision, personal and medical care, household services, companionship, board, lodging and travel. A contractual debt is distinct from damages for gratuitous care in tort. An automatic deduction for income tax and national insurance is inappropriate where the contractual receipts are assessed gross; tax treatment is a matter for HMRC.

Bernadette Rogers v Andrew Wills concerned the quantum of a claim by a daughter against her brother as executor of their mother’s estate. The liability judgment had found an informal contract under which the claimant was to be paid a reasonable sum for providing care, with restitution as an alternative basis. That judgment was binding for the quantum hearing: [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch). The present hearing addressed the contractual claim only. The issues were the period covered by the contract, the quantity and nature of the care, and the reasonable contractual charge where no price had been fixed. The claimant sought £135,000 for 900 days at £150 per day; the court found that only 850 days fell within the contract.

1. Contractual basis. The liability findings were binding. The claim was for recovery of a contractual debt, not tort damages for gratuitous care or restitution. The authorities on gratuitous care in personal-injury claims, including Housecroft v Burnett [1986] 1 All ER 332 and Evans v Pontypridd Roofing Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1657, were therefore distinguished as not directly applicable. There was no automatic 20% deduction for income tax and national insurance; the contractual sums were assessed gross and any tax liability was a matter for HMRC.
2. Valuation. Where no remuneration is fixed, the court must objectively ascertain the parties’ intentions. The probable market cost of obtaining the same or a similar service is likely to be the starting point, while allowing for the informal and unregulated nature of the service. Benedetti v Sawiris [2014] AC 938, Deglman v Guaranty Trust Co of Canada [1954] SCR 725 and Mate v Mate [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch) supported that approach.
3. Assessment. The assessment was broad and evaluative. It did not require a day-by-day or stop-watch calculation. The reasoning in Evans v Pontypridd Roofing Limited supported treating continuous supervision and availability as part of full-time care. A live-in carer was the nearest commercial comparator. The assessment could include personal, medical and dementia care, household services, companionship, disturbed nights, end-of-life care, and board, lodging and travel.
4. Application and outcome. The court found 900 days of care but held that the contract covered 850 days from about 2 November 2017. The evidence established continuous supervision, extensive assistance with daily living, personal and medical care, household support, transportation and accommodation. Commercial comparators and a National Joint Council sense check showed that £150 per day was within the range of reasonable remuneration. The claim therefore succeeded, and judgment was entered for £127,500 plus interest.

1. High Court (Chancery Division). HHJ Matthews had previously determined liability in favour of the claimant; judgment was handed down on 6 June 2025: [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch) .
2. High Court (Property, Trusts and Probate List). The present court determined quantum only and awarded the claimant £127,500 plus interest.