The High Court decision of HHJ Tindal in Roberts v Ford Motor Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 1787 (KB) offers guidance on how courts are likely to approach ‘services dependency’ under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA), particularly where the deceased acted as a long‑term carer.

The judgment provides valuable guidance in addressing three recurring questions:

• How should dependency be valued?
• Should services be assessed at commercial or gratuitous rates?
• What happens when the dependant enters residential care after the death?

Brief overview of the facts

The deceased died from mesothelioma in October 2025. His widow was severely disabled and relied on him as her live‑in carer. The defendant admitted liability for the asbestos exposure.

Following the deceased’s death, his widow’s health deteriorated significantly. She required increasing support from her sons and, ultimately, permanent placement in a care home. The question for the court was whether - and to what extent - those consequences formed part of her recoverable dependency.

Key legal findings

1. Dependency Is valued at the moment of death

The court reaffirmed the principle from Williams and Rupasinghe that dependency is fixed at the date of death, not at any earlier or later point. Even though the deceased’s ability to provide care fluctuated during his illness, he remained his wife’s primary carer until the end.

The court did not retrospectively adjust dependency based on the deceased’s declining health or subsequent events.

2. Gratuitous care rates apply

The deceased was retired and provided care out of love and necessity, not as a professional. The judge therefore applied the NJC gratuitous care rate (minus 25%) rather than commercial care rates.

The court reinforced the importance of understanding the nature of the services provided. Where care is domestic, informal, and non‑commercial, gratuitous rates remain the default.

3. A move to a care home does not automatically end dependency

The defendant argued that once the deceased’s wife entered a care home, she no longer required his services. The court rejected this, emphasising:

• The care‑home placement was a consequence of the claimant’s death, not an independent event.
• His widow’s need for care did not disappear - it increased.
• Under s.4 FAA, benefits arising from the death (such as funded residential care) must be disregarded.

The court found that a defendant cannot benefit from circumstances created by their own tort. Thus, dependency may continue even where the dependant transitions to institutional care. 

Practical implications

• The judgment narrows the scope for arguing that dependency ends upon residential placement.
• It highlights the importance of early, detailed evidence on the nature and extent of pre‑death care.
• It reinforces the need to scrutinise whether claimed services are truly “replacement services” or fall within dependency.
• The case strengthens arguments for ongoing services dependency where the deceased was a primary carer.
• It provides a clear framework for valuing care at gratuitous rates.
• It supports recovery even where post‑death circumstances change dramatically.