Does an estate have any liability to the child who cared for their elderly parent?

The High Court clarifies the application of unjust enrichment, particularly the controversial "free acceptance" principle, offering crucial guidance when navigating informal care arrangements within families.

Background:

Sheila and John Wills were married and had nine children, of whom six survived them both. After her husband died in 2012, Sheila lived alone, was mobile, and had no serious medical issues at the time of her partner’s death. She had a will professionally drafted in December 2015, which appointed the second eldest surviving child as executor and divided her residuary estate equally between her surviving children. 

By her 90th birthday in August 2017, Sheila had become lonely and forgetful, and discussions about her long-term care began among her children. In September 2017, an urgent situation arose when Sheila was found wandering and confused. Her eldest child, Bernadette, became Sheila’s principal carer until her death in April 2020. Probate was granted in June 2020. 

Sheila's move to the claimant's home caused her to make significant changes, including a loss of income from childcare, the need for a new car, and home modifications for Sheila's safety. During this period, there were recurring discussions among the siblings about the claimant being compensated, although nothing materialised. Initially, Sheila paid the claimant £50 per week, but the claimant stopped accepting this, finding it insufficient for expenses and time, although this was balanced by not wanting Sheila to run out of cash. She returned the money already taken, intending to discuss it with the defendant later. The claimant's daughters also confirmed that Sheila repeatedly expressed a desire for the claimant to be paid for her care and not be out of pocket, and that Sheila was very afraid of going into a care home. Her health deteriorated further in 2018 and 2019, and when one of their siblings looked after Sheila while the claimant was away for a weekend, she was paid £350. 

The claimant alleges that the defendant told her to "Just take it" regarding payment for care before Sheila's death. However, the defendant denies this. After Sheila's death, the claimant took £100,000 from her mother's account, leading to a theft prosecution of which she was acquitted. The claim, valued at £135,000 for care costs (£150 per day for 900 days with an invoice), was initially filed in the High Court, transferred to the County Court, and then transferred back to the High Court due to complex legal questions. 

The claimant testified that the defendant told her he had set aside £150,000 for Sheila's care when preparing the inheritance tax (IHT) form. On June 28, 2021, Lloyds Bank informed the defendant that they had agreed with his complaint about the claimant's withdrawals. They had recovered the £100,000 from the claimant's bank (HSBC) and re-credited Sheila's accounts, adding £7,259.10 in interest and £1,000 in compensation. On July 26, 2021, the defendant emailed the claimant, confirming the sale of Sheila's house and the return of the "stolen money" to the estate. He stated the claimant was "due a sum of £52,500" as her inheritance, equivalent to the same amount as the other siblings.

Decision: 

The High Court ruled in the claimant's favour that Sheila had agreed to pay her a reasonable price for the care the claimant provided. The Court reached this conclusion by analysing contract law, noting that English law allows for contracts where the price is unascertained at the time but can be determined later, just as long as it is a reasonable price. Even if no specific formula for remuneration is stated, if payment was clearly intended, a "reasonable price" or "quantum meruit" will be implied. Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (SGSA) 1982 states that, where a service contract does not determine consideration, there is an implied term that a "reasonable charge" will be paid. What constitutes a reasonable charge is thus a question of fact. At the time, Sheila was deemed to have had the capacity to do so and did not want charity. 

The Court found that there was an intention by the parties to create legal relationships. While it is sometimes believed that family arrangements lack this intention, this is a widespread misconception. The relationship is one factor, but the overall evidence determines intent.

The Judge states that if there was no valid contract between Sheila and the claimant (due to a lack of capacity, intention to create legal relations, or there simply being no agreement), the estate's liability in unjust enrichment must be considered. The Judge found that the claimant conferred substantial benefits upon Sheila (enrichment) at the claimant's expense. Sheila accepted those benefits, having the opportunity to decline them, and knowing that they were expected to be paid for. Consequently, the unjust enrichment claim would succeed. 

Implications:

This very lengthy case, with complex facts, has significant implications, particularly concerning situations where individuals provide care or services to family members or close friends, often in anticipation of some form of recompense, but without formal contracts. 

This judgement demonstrates the willingness of courts to accept that a contract was validly formed even in the family context. However, if the claim in contract fails, this decision reaffirms that unjust enrichment remains a crucial "safety net". This claim focuses on whether the defendant has received a benefit at the claimant's expense in circumstances deemed "unjust". This provides a path for recovery where traditional contract law might fail to do so. As demonstrated in this case, it is paramount to advise them to keep clear records of their expectations, discussions, and any instances where the recipient acknowledged the services were not gratuitous. This strengthens a potential "free acceptance" claim.