Catchwords:
ESTOPPEL — Proprietary estoppel — Encouragement — Where plaintiff is a farmer — Where the farm is made up of three parcels of farmland — Where the first parcel of farmland (First Parcel) was owned by plaintiff’s mother (the deceased) prior to her death — Where plaintiff alleges that the deceased made representations that he would inherit all of the First Parcel if he stayed and worked on the farm — Where plaintiff will inherit 70% of the residue of the deceased’s estate, which includes the First Parcel, and has already received the second parcel of farmland (Second Parcel) as an inter vivos gift — Whether the deceased made the representations as alleged — Whether plaintiff has detrimentally relied on the representations EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Constructive trusts — Where third defendant is the plaintiff’s younger brother and a son of the deceased — Where a company (Trustee Company) conducts a farming business as trustee of a unit trust (Unit Trust) — Where plaintiff and third defendant each held units in the Unit Trust — Where Trustee Company owns the third parcel of farmland (Third Parcel) and plant, stock and equipment — Where third defendant declined to give a guarantee for the refinancing of Trustee Company’s debts — Where plaintiff alleges that this conduct of the third defendant resulted in failure of joint venture between them — Whether the Unit Trust’s assets are held subject to a constructive trust in plaintiff’s favour due to failure of joint venture — Whether plaintiff or Trustee Company paid the purchase price for the Third Parcel — Whether plaintiff or Trustee Company owns plant, stock and equipment RESTITUTION — Nature of restitutionary liability — Unjust enrichment — Where plaintiff claims reasonable remuneration on a quantum meruit basis from Trustee Company — Where plaintiff has worked for farming business without deriving any wage — Where there was no contract governing plaintiff’s work — Whether unjust for Trustee Company to retain the benefit of plaintiff’s work — Whether there was an express or implied request by Trustee Company to plaintiff to perform work — Whether Trustee Company accepted plaintiff’s services knowing he expected to be paid — Whether change of position defence applies EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Breaches of trust — Breaches of fiduciary duty — Rule in Barnes v Addy — Where plaintiff is a director of Trustee Company — Where plaintiff caused Trustee Company to transfer its assets to his own family trust — Where plaintiff caused Trustee Company to distribute income to himself and his wife but not the other unitholders — Whether Trustee Company has breached its duties as trustee to third defendant — Whether plaintiff has breached his fiduciary duties to Trustee Company — Whether recipient of trust property is liable under first limb of Barnes v Addy CORPORATIONS — Members’ rights and remedies — Oppression — Where conduct is oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against minority — Where third defendant is a member of Trustee Company — Whether conduct of plaintiff and Trustee Company are oppressive to the interests of third defendant in his capacity as a unitholder in the Unit Trust pursuant to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 232 — Whether a buy-out order is the appropriate remedy SUCCESSION — Family provision — Claims by five adult daughters of the deceased for provision from the deceased’s estate under Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 — Where each daughter received no provision under the deceased’s will — Where the deceased had purported to make provision for her daughters under her will but gifts failed — Where all except the youngest daughter have lived independent lives from the deceased with their spouses and children — Where youngest daughter lived with the deceased and was the deceased’s carer until her death — Whether adequate and proper provision was made by the deceased to each daughter and if not, what the nature and amount of further provision should be — Whether and how burden of additional provision should be adjusted