Eckert v Roberts

This case concerned an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, Mr Eckert, was the former mortgagor of farming land at Langhorne Creek, which was purchased by the respondent, Mr Roberts, from the mortgagee in possession, Rabobank, in August 2010. Following the purchase, Mr Eckert remained in possession of the land and continued to farm it under a lease agreement executed by the parties in August 2010. In March 2015, Mr Roberts served a notice of re-entry and re-possession on Mr Eckert.

The legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia included whether the trial judge erred in finding that Mr Eckert was in trespass and had converted the wine grape crop from the land. The appeal also involved arguments concerning the nature of a constructive trust allegedly imposed on Mr Roberts by virtue of pre-purchase conversations and subsequent conduct, and whether Mr Roberts was estopped from relying on the terms of the lease agreement. The appellant sought to quash the trial judge's orders, dismiss the respondent's claims for possession, conversion, and trespass, and have it declared that Mr Roberts held the land on a constructive trust for Mr Eckert, subject to certain conditions.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings. The Court found that none of the grounds of appeal had been made out. The Court noted that the argument regarding trespass and conversion was not developed during submissions, and that if the findings relating to the lease and Mr Roberts' entitlement to possession were upheld, there could be no defence to those claims. The Court also determined that an affidavit sought to be introduced on appeal did not advance the appellant's case, as the matters it sought to confirm were already common ground at trial.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Court invited the respondent to submit minutes of order consistent with the trial judge's orders and the dismissal of the appeal, and to be heard on the question of costs. Mr Eckert had remained in possession of the farm, paying rent as requested, at the time the appeal was heard.