In 2017 Ursula Wills, known as Sheila, who was 90 years old at the time, was becoming increasingly forgetful and vulnerable because of her dementia. Following a stroke, Sheila needed full-time care but did not want to go into a care home. Sheila moved to stay with her daughter, Bernadette Rogers. This was initially a temporary arrangement however; this soon became a full-time arrangement. As part of this arrangement, Sheila made clear to Bernadette that Bernadette should be remunerated for the care which she provided and Bernadette undertook that care on the basis that she was to receive the remuneration. The parties made a verbal agreement. No figure was agreed however Sheila made clear that Bernadette was to receive full payment.
Following Sheila’s death, Bernadette withdrew £100,000 from Sheila’s bank account due to the care agreement. A family member reported this to the police. The CPS brought criminal proceedings however thankfully, Bernadette was found not guilty and following this, Bernadette brought a High Court claim against Sheila’s estate claiming the care fees which she stated she was entitled to and which Sheila had agreed to.
Why did the Court find that the care agreement was legally binding?
In his judgment, His Honour Judge Matthews, stated that Bernadette was entitled to be remunerated for the care which she provided to Sheila, despite the fact there was no written agreement. Had the agreement not been in place for Bernadette to be remunerated then she may not have cared for Sheila and therefore, Sheila would have been required to move to a nursing home which Sheila was adamant she did not want. It was for this reason; Sheila and Bernadette came to an arrangement regarding the care and remuneration for this.
The Court also considered the fundamentals for creating a binding agreement. In this case there was offer and acceptance, consideration, and importantly, an intention to create legal relations. In addition, Sheila was presumed to have capacity under Section 1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
In the judgment, His Honour Judge Matthews stated as follows:
Sheila plainly intended to create a legal relationship with the claimant. Sheila was a lady who knew she had sufficient resources, who did not want charity, and wanted to be looked after properly, preferably in her own home, but, failing that, living with one of her children. She insisted, not only to the claimant but also to the claimant’s husband and children, that the claimant had to be paid “properly” for looking after her, notwithstanding that the claimant was her daughter. If a third party had undertaken to look after her in its care home, or carers had been employed to come into her own home and look after her there, there would have been little or no question of a lack on intention to create legal relations. I see no sufficient reason not to take the same view if the arrangement was with the claimant rather than a third party. 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.
What evidence supported Bernadette’s claim?
To support her claim, Bernadette was able to refer to the various text messages which she had received from her siblings, including Andrew the executor, regarding reimbursement for the care which she was providing to Sheila. All parties acknowledged that Bernadette had cared for Sheila and the significant burden this placed upon Bernadette.
Could the estate have been liable even without a binding agreement?
The Court also found that even if they were unable to determine that there was a binding agreement, which it did, Bernadette would have been able to bring a claim against the estate as the estate would otherwise have been unjustly enriched.
The Court also considered if the estate and been unjustly enriched namely, the conferring of substantial benefits upon Sheila (enrichment), by the claimant (and so at her expense), in circumstances where Sheila accepted those benefits, having the opportunity to decline them, and knowing that they were expected to be paid for (free acceptance).
Sheila had received a substantial benefit and was therefore enriched by Bernadette, at her expense. Sheila accepted those benefits knowing they were expected to be paid for. Therefore, while the Court could have found that Bernadette was entitled to be repaid from the estate due to unjust enrichment, it was not required to find this given that it found an enforceable agreement existed.
What does this judgment mean for family arrangements?
Following on from this judgment, it is important for family members to document any agreement reached whether this be for care or other services. Whilst ordinarily family arrangements are not legally binding, this can be rebutted and, in this case, based on the evidence available, it was. Had the parties been able to refer to an agreement, there would not have been a dispute as to whether a family arrangement had in fact created a legal agreement, as was subsequently found.
Danielle Blaylock
Contentious Trusts & Probate Senior Associate Solicitor
Danielle is a Senior Associate Solicitor within our Contentious Trusts and Probate team. She specialises in contentious probate disputes and has a particular interest in cases relating to capacity and the farming sector.
