Kronenberg v Macaulay

Case [2025] NSWCA 195

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kronenberg v Macaulay [2025] NSWCA 195
Hearing dates: 8 July 2025
Decision date: 28 August 2025
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
Mitchelmore JA at [239];
Free JA at [240].
Decision:

(1) Appeal allowed.

(2) Orders 1 and 2 made on 3 December 2024 and orders 6, 7 and 8 made on 2 May 2025 be set aside, and in lieu thereof:

(a) dismiss the claims of the first respondent in prayers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the statement of claim, and;

(b) remit for further hearing the claims in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the statement of claim, in accordance with these reasons, such remitter to include the costs of the first trial.

(3) The first respondent to pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal.

Catchwords:

ESTOPPEL — proprietary estoppel — estoppel by encouragement — family farm — representations by father to son concerning eventual ownership of farm — whether representations concerned testamentary intentions or inter vivos transfer — whether representations sufficiently certain — whether plaintiff relied upon representations — whether plaintiff incurred detriment — whether constructive trust on terms appropriate remedy

Legislation Cited:

Succession Act 2006 (NSW) ss 59, 80

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 36.16

Cases Cited:

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Delor Vue Apartments CTS 39788 (2022) 277 CLR 445; [2022] HCA 38

Barnes v Alderton [2008] NSWSC 107; 13 BPR 25,281

Bassett v Bassett [2021] NSWCA 320

Bassett v Cameron [2021] NSWSC 207

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; [1987] HCA 59

Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1

Boensch v Pascoe (2019) 268 CLR 593; [2019] HCA 49

Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242; [1984] HCA 81

Craig-Bridges v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2017] NSWCA 197

Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd (2016) 260 CLR 1; [2016] HCA 26

Daniel v Athans [2022] NSWSC 1712

Donis v Donis (2007) 19 VR 577; [2007] VSCA 89

Erem v Moussa [2024] NSWSC 641

Flinn v Flinn [1999] 3 VR 712; [1999] VSCA 109

Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385; [1989] HCA 51

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22

Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101; [1999] HCA 10

Harrison v Harrison [2013] VSCA 170

In the matter of Hillsea Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1152

Jenyns v Public Curator (Qld) (1953) 90 CLR 113; [1953] HCA 2

Kramer v Stone [2024] HCA 48; 99 ALJR 126

Kramer v Stone (2023) 112 NSWLR 564; [2023] NSWCA 270

Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28

Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406; [1983] HCA 11

Macaulay v Macaulay [2024] NSWSC 1547

Macaulay v Macaulay (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 421

Massoud v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Massoud v Fox Sports Australia Pty Ltd (2022) 109 NSWLR 468; [2022] NSWCA 150

Murray v Sheldon…

Continue reading Kronenberg v Macaulay

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kronenberg v Macaulay [2025] NSWCA 195
Case
[2025] NSWCA 195
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Kronenberg v Macaulay* concerned a dispute over a family farm, brought before the New South Wales Court of Appeal by the appellants against the first respondent. The core of the disagreement revolved around representations allegedly made by the deceased father to his son regarding the eventual ownership of the farm.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the representations made by the father were sufficiently certain to give rise to an estoppel, and whether these representations concerned testamentary intentions or an intention to transfer the property inter vivos. Further, the Court had to consider whether the son had relied upon these representations to his detriment, and if so, what remedy, such as a constructive trust, would be appropriate.

The Court found that the representations made by the father were not sufficiently certain to establish an estoppel. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the previous orders were set aside. The claims of the first respondent in certain prayers of the statement of claim were dismissed, while other claims were remitted for further hearing. The first respondent was also ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal allowed.

(2) Orders 1 and 2 made on 3 December 2024 and orders 6, 7 and 8 made on 2 May 2025 be set aside, and in lieu thereof:

(a) dismiss the claims of the first respondent in prayers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the statement of claim, and;

(b) remit for further hearing the claims in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the statement of claim, in accordance with these reasons, such remitter to include the costs of the first trial.

(3) The first respondent to pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.