The children of a farming family dispute in court demonstrates the effect of promises about succession of the farm made by their father during his life.

Neil and Janet Macauley had four children, Scott, Craig, Christina Kronenberg, and Tracey Ford. On 28 August 2025,the NSW Court of Appeal deliver judgment in an appeal brought by Christina and Tracey against Scott and Craig as respondents dismissing the earlier judgment that benefitted Scott and remitting the matter back to the Supreme Court for a further hearing in relation to the a claim by Scott for provision from the estate of their father that had not been determined. (Kronenberg v Macauley [2025] NSWCA 195)

Scott had farmed the properties in partnership with his parents for almost 30 years. The farm comprised three properties, Parkvale, owned Neil and Janet, Miltons, which was owned by Neil, with Janet and Scott as tenants in common, and Fairfield which was owned by Scott, purchased in 1999.

Scott’s case was that his father had made promises that the farm would be his and wills made in 2007 contemplated Scott inheriting Parkvale and Miltons on condition that Fairfield was transferred to Craig debt free. However, in his final will in 2018, Neil left Parkvale and his share of Miltons to his other three children and only a house to Scott. Scott brought proceedings claiming that Parkvale and his father’s share of Miltons were held on constructive trust for him.

It was necessary for Scott to prove that the promises were made, that he relied on the promises to his detriment, and that it was unconscionable for the estate to depart from the promises. The judge in the original trial found in Scott’s favor and held that Parkvale and the share of Miltons held by the estate were held on trust for Scott on condition that he transfer Fairfield to Craig debt free. His Honour made decisions about the partnership debts and considered that it was unnecessary for him to deal with Scott’s family provision claim.

The Court of Appeal held that it was reasonable for Scott to regard as irrevocable the promise made by Neil in his 2007 will. As it was not argued before it, the court did not consider whether the promise was sufficiently certain as is required.

The Court of Appeal held however that Scott failed to prove that he relied on the promises made by his father. The court held that because no representation or promise was indemnified before 1997 it was not possible for Scott to claim that he purchased Fairfield in reliance on any promises. Similarly, there was no promises claimed to have been made before Scott joined the farming partnership. In 2007, Scott had been a member of the partnership for 18 years. As to the purchase of Miltons in 1994, Scott claimed that his father told him that it would ultimately belong to him in the future. The court found that this was not entirely clear because from the date of purchase Scott was a co-owner, the property was purchased with partnership funds, and a CBA loan was serviced by the partnership. No promise was alleged by Scott before he joined the partnership.

Part of the lower court’s reasoning in finding Scott relied on his father’s promise was the rejection of the submission made by his siblings that Scott could not afford to leave the partnership. The court of appeal rejected this submission and pointed out it was for Scott to prove he relied on the promise pointing to facts in the relationship with his father.

The court of appeal held that Scott’s claim in sustaining the partnership could only be decided by a consideration of his claim for family provision under the Succession Act. The court remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court for a single judge to determine this claim.

The appeal of Christina and Tracey was successful. The Court of Appeal held that Scott did not prove that he relied on the promises made by his father that Parkvale and his share of Miltons would be his. Scott’s case for relief for family provision was however to be heard later by a single judge of the court.

This case highlights the importance of having clear arrangements in place for the succession of farming enterprises that are understand and agreed to by all family members.