On 14 November 2025 Mark Sydney Von Somogy approached the Supreme Court of NSW and successfully applied for an injunction to restrain Digital Valley Pty Ltd from completing the sale of his property in the Hunter Valley, owned by his company PamaAG Pty Ltd ([ 2025] NSWSC 1355).
Mr Sydney, as the plaintiff is referred to on the judgment, contracted to purchase the property in late 2022 and in March 2024 PamaAG entered into a 12-month loan agreement to borrow $1.3 million from the defendant. At the time of the hearing the debt was approximately $1.8 million.
In October 2025 Mr Sydney wrote to David Grabovoc a director of the defendant apologizing for his failure to repay the loan and enclosing a “farmer-initiated farm debt mediation notice” under the Farm Debt Mediation Act.
Mr Sydney had heard rumours that the defendant was selling the property. The defendant had taken possession by changing the locks on the vacant property . In November 2025 the defendant claimed that the Farm Debt Mediation Act did not apply and wrote to the solicitor for Mr Sydney requesting details of the farming activities carried out on the property.
During the court hearing the evidence was that prior to ownership by Mr Sydney the property was used for grape growing for some well-known wine makers. At the time of the hearing a local had about 45 head of cattle agisted on the property. Plaintiff had no cattle of his own on the property but the evidence of Mr Sydney was that he was attempting to prepare the property to bring his own cattle onto it. The property had a carrying capacity of between 240 to 270 cattle. The preparation involved fox baiting, wild dog hunting, clearing the fence lines and slashing. Mr Sydney explained to the court that there was a delay in starting his business because of a dispute with a neighbour but that he intended to bring 100 head of cattle onto the property in March b/ Aoril 2026 to acclimate them for calving in August/September 2026.
To decide whether the Farm Debt Mediation Act applied and enforcement was prohibited the court had to determine a number of matters. Whether the debt was a “farm debt” depended on whether the debt was incurred for the purpose of conducting a “farming operation”. Also, whether the debt is secured wholly or partly by a “farm mortgage”. The first of these questions was to be determined by looking at the circumstances at the time of entry into the loan. For the purpose of the interlocutory hearing Hus Honour was satisfied that the loan was incurred to further the conduct of a “farming operation”.
The second question, whether the debt was secured by a “farm mortgage” can only be answered by looking at the present. A debt will only be a “farm debt” if it is secured by a “farm mortgage”. A “farm mortgage” includes any interest on or over any farm property. A “farm”, in turns, means land on which a farmer engages in a “farming operation”.
His Honour held that agistment was a “farming operation” for the purpose of the Act. In addition, his Honour held that the preparatory work that Mr Sydney was doing to advance his own cattle business was a farming operation.
In conclusion His Honour found that PamaAG was engaged in a “farming operation” and enforcement was prohibited under the Farm Debt Mediation Act.
The final hurdle for Mr Sydney was the value of any undertaking for damages he was required to give and whether he should be required to pay the debt into court, which is the general rule.
Based on a valuation that was before him His Honour held that there was sufficient equity in the property to secure the debt and interest for some months. It is important to note that the decision on the injunction would likely have been different if the debt and ongoing interest were not secured.
This decision is an important guide for farmers on when a creditor will be prohibited from enforcing a farm debt and the conditions the court will impose on the making of such an order.