The lawyer for the adopted daughter of "Auntie Em" opted yesterday not to let her take the stand in court to defend accusations that she owes $25,000 to a caregiver.

Ray DeSilva told Magistrates' Court that he wished to call no witnesses and that his client Rosamund Hayward — who is being sued for the cash by nursing assistant Yvonne Dawson — would not be giving evidence.

"My client is not on trial," he said. "It's a civil matter. The plaintiff has the burden of proving things and my submission will be that she hasn't."

Ms Dawson took 95-year-old Wilhelmina Liburd into her own home in late 2006 after she was found to be living in filthy and unhabitable conditions at the family home at Upland Street, Devonshire with adopted daughter Mrs. Hayward and other relatives.

The Royal Gazette revealed the harrowing case of Auntie Em last September once she was in hospital following an operation to remove part of a leg due to gangrene suspected to have been caused by neglect.

Ms Dawson's civil claim against Mrs. Hayward is that the two had a verbal contract for her to provide healthcare services for the frail great-grandmother, who has partial blindness caused by cataracts, but she was not paid what she was owed.

Proceedings this week have focused on the preliminary issue of whether the contract existed, with Mr. DeSilva arguing yesterday that there was never a "meeting of the minds" between his client and Ms Dawson.

The nursing assistant cared for Mrs. Liburd in the Upland Street property for about a month before the elderly widow went to live with her at her home in Pleasantville Lane, Sandys.

Mr. DeSilva said the "watershed moment" was a meeting at the National Office for Seniors and the Physically Challenged on November 23, 2006, when Ms Dawson agreed to take in Auntie Em.

"What is in dispute is whether Ms Dawson raised the issue of whether she was going to charge for taking Mrs. Liburd," said Mr. DeSilva. "Ms Dawson denied when I suggested to her that she did not raise the issue of charging with the meeting."

He added that Mrs. Liburd's nephew Stephen Woodley, in his evidence, said there was no need for Ms Dawson to raise the issue because everyone would know it was going to cost her to care for Auntie Em.

A payment made by Mrs. Hayward for $280 to Ms Dawson was a "general contribution" towards costs, according to Mr. DeSilva, and not the result of any contract.

Leo Mills, for Ms Dawson, claimed the $280 was an indication of Mrs. Hayward's acceptance of a contract between her and the caregiver.

"That's one of the reasons why we submit that the court should find that there was, in fact, a valid contract of services between the plaintiff and the defendant," he said.

"It's the plaintiff's position that there was, from her point of view, a contract in place between herself and Mrs. Hayward and it was on the basis of that contract that she offered, and indeed provided, her professional services to Auntie Em."

Mr. Mills said the issue of payment was properly communicated to Mrs. Hayward. "We submit that there was no ambiguity," he said, adding that there was no reason for her to have misunderstood or misconceived what she was told.

He said there was no sound basis for the defence's claim that Mr. Woodley was the one who ought to have paid Ms Dawson.

Magistrate Tyrone Chin, who described the matter on Monday as "a bit of a tragic case", will deliver his ruling on whether a contract existed next month.