In mid 1992, David claims that his mother promised him that if he stayed and worked on the farm, one day it would be his. David said in Supreme Court proceedings that the promise was repeated in 2002 when Robyn sold Ilfracombe and purchased Oakhampton. The dispute was heard in July 2024 and judgment was delivered on 29 August 2024.

David argued that his mother was estopped from denying that that she held Oakhampton on trust on a number of bases. The first was that there was a common intention constructive trust.

To prove this trust David was required to show that his mother and he intended that Ilfracombe and Oakhampton when purchased, would eventually be given to him. He claimed that he acted to his detriment in reliance on the promise by working for no or little remuneration and that it was now unconscionable for his mother to deny that she held the property for him.

Robyn denied that the conversations David deposed as taking place in 1992 or 2002 took place.

His Honour looked at the surrounding circumstances to decide on the issue of whether the representations were made. His Honour observed that at the time of the first representation opinion 1992 David was 14 or 15 and that it was unlikely that Robyn, who was going through a separation would enter into such an agreement with her school age son. Ilfracombe was purchased by Robyn and Alan as their family farm many years before and only became Robyn’s after the property settlement was finalized in 1997.

Oakhampton was purchased by Robyn in 2002, following the sale of Ilfracombe with the assistance of a mortgage of $140,000. She did not contemplate that David would have the property during her period of ownership. His Honour accepted that Robyn may have intended to give the property to David in her will.

His Honour examined the conduct of the parties and found that the way they acted was not consistent with such a promise ever being made. His Honour found that David had not acted to his detriment. David said that if the promise had not been made, he would have become a mechanic. His Honour pointed out that David spent considerable time working and living away from the farm.

Between 2008 and 2011, David worked full time for Blue Dog Fencing in Tamworth and between 2012 and 2015, David worked for Chaffey Mower Repairs in Tamworth. During these periods he did not live on the farm or contribute to the farm work. His Honour found that Robyn never held David back from pursuing interests outside of the farm.

His Honour rejected the common intention constructive trust claim.

In our next newsletter, we will outline other trusts suggested by David to support his claim, the requirements to prove the existence of such trusts and His Honour’s approach to them.

The important lesson from this case is the need to document arrangement in the family clearly so that expensive and stressful court cases such as this are avoided.