CONTESTING A WILL WITH WILLCLAIM SOLICITORS NO WIN NO FEE SPECIALISTS –  IS AN ESTATE LIABLE FOR CARE SERVICES PROVIDED BY A NEAR RELATIVE 

Will claim Solicitors, specialist no win no fee will dispute and will contest Solicitors, consider the circumstances in which an estate might be liable for the cost of care provided by a near relative 

Bernadette Rogers v Andrew Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch) 
The payment for and/or cost of care by a near relative is often a major issue in claims about disputed and/or contested wills and estates. In Bernadette Rogers mentioned above, it was central point in this fraught dispute between siblings fighting over their late mother’s estate. If the length of the Judgment is anything to go by (77 pages), the cost of the dispute could easily exceed the sum in issue – a payment of £135,000 for 900 days of care (of which £100,000 was taken from the estate just after death).  

There had even been an earlier criminal action for theft against the Claimant “care giver” (Bernadette) – she was acquitted after a jury trial at Bristol Crown Court.  

For a transcript (of the civil case Judgment), see: 
Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch) (06 June 2025) 

Bernadette Rogers won her claim for the cost of care 
There seems to have been little doubt on the facts that Bernadette provided considerable care and support to her mother and over and extended period. One suspects the situation in this case where £100,000 was taken from the estate shortly after the death which seems to have lead to the criminal prosecution, clouded this simple reality. Certainly, if our assessment of the possible costs is correct, this whole scenario should have been avoided. Only the lawyers appear to have won this claim. As per HHJ Matthews in paragraph 1 of his Judgment: 

“In broad terms, the claim relates to the costs of care of their late mother before she died. The events that have given rise to a claim, and the litigation itself, have completely fractured the previously united and close family relationship. It is a tragedy for all concerned. Given the costs of mounting and fighting a case of this sort, it is also an expensive tragedy.” 

We have discussed the inherent dangers of pursuing a claim to trial in previous blogs, for example – The Inherent Risks of Taking a Case to Trial – Will Claim Solicitors 

As in every case, these simple questions must be considered: 

1. is it worth running the claim to a trial bearing in mind the cost of winning; and 
2. taking into account the risk of losing. 

Even a win can amount to a financial loss – you will not recover all of your own costs since on assessment, up to 50% can be taxed off. If the value of the dispute (the sum in issue) is less than the sum you might recover for your costs, you (as the litigant) will be the loser and your lawyers the winner(s). Whilst I understand there is often a “principle” at stake; “principles do not pay bills”.  

Moreover costs orders in will dispute and will contest claim can be made (even after a win) whereby the estate pays all or some of the costs rather than the losing party or that each party pays its own costs.  

A contract between family members can exist and be enforced 

As per HHJ Matthews at paragraph 177: 
“It is sometimes thought that, where an arrangement is entered into between members of a family, even close members, then as a matter of fact there is no intention to create legal relations. This is wrong. It is always a question on the evidence available (and the relationship is only one element in this) as to whether there is an intention to create legal relations” 

Again, he puts at paragraph 240: 
“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” 

Finally, in paragraph 176: 
“On the facts, assuming that Sheila [the deceased] had capacity to make a contract, and intended to do so, Sheila agreed to pay for care and the claim agreed to provide it. So, the 1982 Act [Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982] can and does apply. Sheila’s obligation in that case was to pay a reasonable sum for her care” 

In the alternative the estate was liable to Bernadette in “unjust enrichment” 
This case is notable for HHJ Matthew’s deep dive into the law on “unjust enrichment” which I just about managed to follow (!). He found (at paragraphs 243 and 244) that even if he were wrong about the creation of a valid contract between the deceased [Sheila] and the Claimant [Bernadette], there were sufficient elements of a claim for “unjust enrichment” to make the estate liable to Bernadette. He also found that there was likely to have been a possible “estoppel”.  

If you consider any of these facts and matters are of interest, are likely to apply to you, or you would like to ask us for more information about our no win no fee arrangement, or you simply want us to assess your claim, then please do not hesitate to contact us for a confidential no strings chat and/or visit us at www.willclaim.com.  

We provide details about our no win no fee arrangements at https://www.willclaim.com/no-win-no-fee/.