Herrod v Johnston

In this case, the siblings were involved in a dispute regarding their father’s estate. The father had been in a cattle property partnership with two of the siblings, and his interest in the partnership and residue was to be left equally to the third sibling and the respondents. The appellants, two of the siblings, had discussions with the respondents about assigning their interest in the partnership to the appellants for a monetary sum. The first respondent signed an agreement to this effect, but the second respondent did not. The partnership agreement provided for an option to purchase the share of the partnership, and the appellants argued that the primary judge erred in law in finding that the option had not been validly exercised. The appellants also argued that the primary judge erred in law in finding that an oral agreement with the second respondent was unenforceable and that the respondents were each entitled to elect to have an account of profits or equitable compensation.

The court considered whether the option was validly exercised, whether a legally binding and enforceable agreement was created with the second respondent, and whether the respondents were entitled to equitable relief. The court also considered whether the primary judge’s findings regarding the value of the herd, partnership plant and equipment, and debt were erroneous. The court found that the primary judge’s findings were not erroneous and that the appellants had not established that the primary judge erred in law. The court found that the primary judge was correct in finding that the respondents were entitled to equitable compensation and that the amount should be reduced to $273,851.

The court allowed the appeal and varied the declarations and orders at first instance by substituting $273,851 for $433,709.67. The court found that the primary judge’s findings were correct and that the appellants had not established that the primary judge erred in law. The court found that the respondents were entitled to equitable compensation and that the amount should be reduced to $273,851. The court did not find that the respondents should be denied equitable relief on account of delay, and the court did not find that the primary judge erred in not drawing an inference adverse to the respondents from their failure to call the first respondent’s daughter as a witness.