Steven Wayne Bull v Bevan James Bull and Valerie Joan Bull

[2024] SADC 109

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil)

STEVEN WAYNE BULL v BEVAN JAMES BULL AND VALERIE JOAN BULL

[2024] SADC 109

Judgment of his Honour Judge Burnett  

17 September 2024

ESTOPPEL - ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT - ACT, OMISSION OR ASSUMPTION - ACQUIESCENCE, ENCOURAGEMENT OR SILENCE

ESTOPPEL - ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT - PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL

EQUITY - TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES - IMPLIED TRUSTS - CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS - OTHER PARTICULAR CASES

The applicant seeks a declaration that farming land owned by the respondents is held on constructive trust for his benefit.

The applicant is the son of the respondents. The applicant has worked on the farm since 1984: first, as an employee of the partnership that then operated the farm and from 1994 as a partner of a new partnership that carried on the business of operating the farm. The respondents were also partners of that partnership.

The land upon which the farming business was conducted was initially owned by Francis Bull, the grandfather of the applicant and the father of the first respondent. Up until 2017, the respondents owned only a small parcel of the farming land. From 1996, further land was acquired which forms part of the land upon which the farming business was conducted. This land was acquired in the name of the applicant or the company which acted as trustee for his family trust.

Francis Bull died in 2015. In 2017, after a dispute involving Francis’ will, the first respondent became the owner of the land previously held by Francis.

From about 2015, the relationship between the applicant and the respondents deteriorated. The partnership between the applicant and the respondents was terminated on 31 January 2020. The respondents have changed their will such that they now will leave the farming land equally to all five of their children, including the applicant. Issues relating the termination of the partnership, but not of the land, were settled at mediation in June 2020.

The applicant’s claim for a declaration of a constructive trust is based on proprietary estoppel by encouragement, promissory estoppel or failure of a joint venture. The applicant contends that the respondents promised him that if he worked on the farm and invested his work and wages in the farm, then one day the farm and the partnership would be his. The applicants claims that the promise was first made in 1984 and was repeated on many occasions. The applicant claims that the respondents have resiled from that promise.

Held:

(1) The claim of the applicant is dismissed. The essential elements of a claim in proprietary estoppel by encouragement as set out in Carter v Brine [2015] SASC 204 have not been established.

(2) Promises in the context of a family arrangement do not need the same degree of certainty as those in a commercial or arms lengths context. What is important is how the promise was reasonably understood by the representee: E Co v Q [2018] NSWSC 442 applied.

(3)  The respondents did not either expressly or indirectly make any representation that the applicant would one day inherit or receive the farming land. The making of such a promise was inconsistent with offers that the applicant made to purchase the land at a fair price and requests that he made of the respondents that he be given the opportunity to purchase the land.

(4) Reliance raises two questions: did the applicant in fact rely upon the alleged representation and would he have acted differently if the promise had not been made. Reliance need only be a contributing cause, not a sole or predominant inducement: E Co v Q [2018] NSWSC 442, Pirrottina v Pirrottina [2024] NSWSC 558 applied. The applicant has not established reliance.

(5) It is detrimental reliance which makes an estoppel enforceable. Detriment need not be purely pecuniary and may be lifechanging decisions with irreversible consequences of a personal nature. The relevant detriment is not the loss flowing from the non-fulfilment of the promise but the loss the party asserting the estoppel would suffer as a result of their original change of position: Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505 applied. The applicant's evidence that he always wanted to be a farmer and the fact that through the partnership, he gained the opportunity to acquire a significant landholding in his own name and in his Trust, leads to the conclusion that he had not suffered relevant detriment.

(6) Prima facie, the Court will enforce a reasonable expectation which the party bound created or encouraged. It is no longer the case that relief will be moulded to reflect the minimum relief necessary to remove the detriment: Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505 applied.

(7) Although promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel identify different characteristics as to when the estoppels might arise, in the circumstances of this case, the claim in promissory estoppel does not expand upon the conduct that would be caught by proprietary estoppel: Ashton v Pratt (2015) 88 NSWLR 281, DHJPM Pty Ltd v Blackthorn Resources Ltd (2011) 83 NSWLR 728 applied.

(8) The claim for a declaration of a constructive trust based on a joint venture that has failed is also dismissed. The basis of such a claim is that equity would not permit a party to retain the benefit of property where it would be unconscionable for them to do so: Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 585 applied. In this case, the joint venture was the farming business conducted over the applicant’s and the first respondent’s land. There is no unconscionability in the parties’ retaining their respective landholdings in circumstances where no representation had been made that the applicant would receive or inherit all of the farming land.

Jones v Dunkel (1950) 101 CLR 298; Ho v Powell (2001) 51 NSWLR 572; Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich (2009) 75 ACSR 1; Smith v Samuels (1976) 12 SASR 573; Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361; Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191; Ward v Apprice (1704) 6 Mod Rep 264; Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505; Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483; Ashton v Pratt (2015) 88 NSWLR 281; Doueihi v Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (2016) 92 NSWLR 247; Rocco Condello v Sung Soo Kim [2018] NSWSC 394; Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776; Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387; E Co v Q [2018] NSWSC 442; Flinn v Flinn [1999] 3 VR 712; Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210; Q (a pseudonym) v E Co (a pseudonym) (2020) 383 ALR 469; Carter v Brine [2015] SASC 204; Austotel v Franklins Self-Serve Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 582; Equititrust Ltd v Franks (2009) 258 ALR 388; DHJPM Pty Ltd v Blackthorn Resources Ltd (formerly called AIM Resources Ltd) (2011) 83 NSWLR 728; Pirrottina v Pirrottina [2024] NSWSC 558; Evans v Evans [2011] NSWCA 92; Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 9) (2008) 39 WAR 1; Sullivan v Sullivan [2006] NSWCA 312; Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd (2016) 260 CLR 1; Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101; Cowper-Smith v Morgan [2017] 2 S.C.R. 754; Wheatley v Salmon [2022] NSWSC 395; Masters Home Improvement Pty Ltd v North East Solution Pty Ltd (2017) 372 ALR 440; Fitzgibbons v Shaftsbury Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 525; Cesira Ravagnolo (by her tutor Katerina Skinner) v Lang Ravagnolo; Lang Ravagnolo v Cesira Ravagnolo [2024] NSWSC 662; LCY Pty Ltd v Ma [2017] VSCA 383; Wantagong Farms Pty Ltd as trustee for the Bulle Family Trust v Bulle (Wantagong) [2015] NSWSC 1603; Grundt v The Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Limited (1937) 59 CLR 641; Harris v Harris [2021] VSCA 138; Donis v Donis (2007) 19 VR 577; Commercial & General Corp Pty Ltd v Manassen Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] SASCFC 40; Rodda v Ian Rodda Pty Ltd [2015] SASC 95; Dowsett v Reid (1912) 15 CLR 695; Gail v Mitchell (1924) 35 CLR 222; Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583; Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; Shepherd v Doolan [2005] NSWSC 42; West v Mead [2003] NSWSC 161; Sivirtas v Sivirtas [2008] VSC 374; Nolan v Nolan [2015] QCA 199, considered.

STEVEN WAYNE BULL v BEVAN JAMES BULL AND VALERIE JOAN BULL
[2024] SADC 109

Introduction

1. These proceedings concern a claim by the applicant, Steven Bull (Steven), for a declaration that farming land situated near Kadina on Yorke Peninsula and owned by the respondents (the Farming Land) is held on constructive trust for the benefit of Steven.

2. Steven is the son of the first respondent, Bevan Bull (Bevan), and his wife, the second respondent, Valerie Bull (Valerie). Steven’s partner is Elizabeth Berger (Liz). They met and formed a relationship in about 1997. They have two children, Ryan and Joshua.

3. Steven has worked on the farm since 1984: first, as an employee of the partnership that then operated the farm and from 1994 as a partner of a new partnership that carried on the business of operating the farm. Throughout the period from 1984-1994, the majority of the land upon which the farm business then operated was owned by Francis Bull (Francis), the grandfather of Steven and the father of Bevan. During that period, Bevan owned a small parcel of land in his own name (section 899) and some land jointly with his brother, Ian Bull (Ian) and Francis. From 1996, further land has been acquired and forms part of the land upon which the farming business has been conducted. Five parcels of land were acquired in the name of Steven or his trustee company, Bull Holdings Pty Ltd, which holds the land as trustee for the Bull Family Trust (the Trust).

4. On 23 May 2015, Francis died. Following a dispute with his siblings, Bevan brought proceedings challenging Francis’ will (the estate litigation). As a result of the settlement of the estate litigation, Bevan became the owner of the land held previously by Francis, although on condition that he pay his siblings the sum of $1 million.

5. From about 2015, the relationship between Steven and Bevan deteriorated. On 31 January 2020, the partnership between Steven, Bevan and Valerie that conducted the farming business was terminated. Issues relating to the termination of the partnership were settled at mediation in June 2020.

6. Steven brought these proceedings in 2021. Steven seeks a declaration of a constructive trust over the Farming Land based on proprietary estoppel by encouragement or promissory estoppel. Steven seeks a declaration of a constructive trust over all of the Farming Land including the land which Bevan and Valerie have an interest as tenants in common. Alternatively, Steven seeks equitable compensation. Steven claims that Bevan promised him that if he worked on the farm and invested his work and wages in the farm then one day the farm and the partnership would be his. Steven claims that the promise was repeated on many occasions. Steven contends that he has relied upon the promises to his detriment. Steven claims that Bevan and Valerie have reneged on that promise and have stated that they intend to leave the Farming Land equally between their five children, including Steven.

7. Steven also seeks the declaration of a constructive trust based on the failure of the joint venture, namely the farming operation.

8. In opening, senior counsel for Steven said that the imposition of the constructive trust needed to be crafted in such a way that ensured a clean break between the parties. Therefore, it was submitted that the order for the constructive trust would be subject to conditions requiring Steven to:

   (1)pay the costs of the transfer;

   (2)pay some form of compensation for Bevan and Valerie’s loss of income (by the accelerated transfer for the Farming Land to Steven);

   (3)make income available to Bevan and Valerie to fund their retirement; and

   (4)pay some form of compensation to Steven’s siblings that recognises that he pay them a fair price for the land. That, it was submitted, could take the form of the transfer of some of the land or that Steven receive less than the whole of the land. In his written closing, Steven submitted that the remedy could take the form of declaring a trust only over the land held in Bevan’s sole name. In that way, it was submitted, the requirement that Steven provide for Bevan and Valerie in their retirement and that Steven’s siblings receive some form of inheritance would be satisfied without the need for any further conditions.

9. Bevan and Valerie deny the claims. They deny that promises that Steven would inherit or receive the Farming Land were ever made and say that if any representations were made, they were vague and ambiguous. They further claim that Steven did not form the required expectation as a result of any promise that they might have made. Bevan and Valerie further deny that Steven actually relied on any promises made or that it was reasonable for him to do so. Bevan and Valerie deny that Steven has established any detriment. Lastly, they deny that Steven is entitled to the relief sought given the impact of the orders sought by him on his parents and siblings.

10. Bevan and Valerie brought a cross-claim in which they sought relief relating to the agreement that the parties had entered into relating to the dissolution of the partnership. Following the conclusion of the hearing, the parties resolved the cross claim. I will hear the parties as to the formal orders they wish to make in relation to the cross claim but will not deal with the cross-claim in these reasons.

    Overview of the claim

11. Steven claims that a promise was made by Bevan in January 1984 when Steven first commenced working as an employee on the farm for the partnership FD Bull & Sons, which was the partnership then operating the farm. FD Bull & Sons was a partnership of Francis, Ruth (Francis’ wife), Bevan, Valerie and Ian (Bevan’s elder brother and the oldest son of Francis and Ruth) and Helen (Ian’s wife). Steven alleges that Bevan said to him on numerous occasions that Francis had promised Bevan that if Bevan invested his work and wages in the farm, then one day the farm and the partnership would be his and that he intended to treat Steven in the same way, namely that if Steven invested his work and wages in the farm, then one day the farm and the partnership would be his.[1] Steven alleges that he relied on this promise by working long hours for the partnership and foregoing the opportunity to earn off-farm income.[2]

    [1]    Statement of Claim [49]/

    [2]    Ibid, [25].

12. As at 1984, most of the land upon which the farming business was conducted was owned by Francis. Bevan owned only a small amount of land in his name and owned some further land jointly with Francis and Ian.

13. In December 1993, Ian and Helen gave notice of their intention to retire from the FD Bull & Sons partnership. In January 1994, a new partnership was formed called Anidak Pastoral (Anidak). That partnership comprised Francis, Ruth, Bevan, Valerie and Steven. Following a dispute with Francis and Ruth, in July 1995 a further partnership was formed, BJ, VJ & SW Bull (the Partnership), which carried on the farming business. Bevan, Valerie and Steven were the partners of the Partnership.[3] Anidak continued to carry on some business for a period of time but gradually wound down its operations. The Partnership carried on business until 31 January 2020.

    [3] Ibid, [13], [27]-[31].

14. Steven alleges that in the negotiations leading up to the dissolution of the FD Bull & Sons partnership in about 1994 and shortly thereafter, Bevan repeated and confirmed his earlier promise and represented to Steven that if he did the things asked of him, then he would inherit the farm and the farm and the partnership would be his.

15. Steven alleges in his statement of claim that the promises were confirmed on many occasions in the period between 1993 to 2020. Steven alleges that Bevan made promises to him:

    (1)when trading in plant and equipment or purchasing new plant and equipment;

    (2)at lunchtime discussions with Bevan and Valerie to the effect that it was Steven who was working on the farm and the other children were not and therefore it was fair that Steven would get the farm;

    (3)in discussions with Bevan and Valerie, that Steven would one day own all of the Farming Land and plant and equipment but would have to pay a “fair price” for the Farming Land to his siblings (which would not be an equal share but that upon the death of the survivor of Bevan and Valerie, Steven would have to make a nominal payment over time to his siblings). A fair price would also involve Steven funding Bevan and Valerie’s retirement in Kadina and providing them with ongoing income;

    (4)when purchasing further land in Steven’s name in 1996, that Steven should end up with the land without having to fight for it and engage in litigation with his siblings as he, Bevan had been required to do when Francis resiled from his own promise. Steven should get the land because he was working to pay for the farm, was responsible for debt and had to put wages back into the farm if he wanted to get it and shouldn’t have to pay for it twice;

    (5)when Steven’s request for an increased draw of profits after the birth of his son was refused because Steven would one day receive the Farming Land;

    (6)in about 2008, when renovating his transportable house, to stop further work and not spend further money because Steven would live in Bevan and Valerie’s house and he would have the farm and look after Bevan and Valerie in their retirement;

    (7)In about 2009, when purchasing additional farming land, Bevan said to Steven that the land should be purchased in an entity that would protect it from being attacked by Steven’s siblings;

    (8)Prior to 2017, Bevan told Steven that one of his siblings had asked what Steven would inherit and Bevan said that he had told that sibling that Steven would get the farm and the plant and equipment and that the other siblings would get their share from other things; and

    (9)During the course of the estate litigation, Bevan said to Steven that he would never put Steven through what he was going through and that he would honour the promises he made to Steven.[4]

    [4] Ibid. [38.1]-[38.12].

16. Steven pleaded that Valerie was present on numerous occasions when Steven made the promises and thereby adopted the promises or acquiesced in their making.[5]

    [5] Ibid [40].

17. Steven pleaded that he relied on the promise and the repeated promises in a number of ways, including leaving school at 16 years of age, not seeking off-farm income or an off-farm career, working on the farm for minimal wages, not receiving his share of the profits of Anidak and the Partnership, investing income and profits he received back into the Partnership, not joining in the estate litigation and assisting Bevan to raise the necessary funds to pay the settlement sum by using the Partnership overdraft to pay that sum and in purchasing the land known as Lou’s Land (Louis Bull, known as Lou, was a brother of Francis and an uncle of Steven).[6]

    [6] Ibid [49].

18. Steven pleaded that he will suffer significant detriment if the promises are not enforced in that he will be unable to purchase the Farming Land at market price.[7]

    [7] Ibid [54.1].

19. Steven has pleaded that his relationship with Bevan has broken down irretrievably and Bevan has evidenced his intention to resile from the alleged representations by, inter alia, making new wills where he leaves everything equally to all of his children and further by telling Steven that he had “lost himself a farm”.

    The Trial

20. At trial, Steven called five lay witnesses: himself, his partner Liz, Ryan Bull (his oldest son), (Ryan), Mark Northcott (a bank officer from Rabobank and prior to that NAB), and David Ellis (the accountant of the Partnership). The case primarily turned on an assessment of the credibility of the evidence of Steven and on the other hand, Bevan, although relevant to their credibility was some of the evidence from other witnesses and some of the documentary evidence.

1. Steven gave evidence about all aspects of his claim, including the promises he said were made to him, the farming history, his personal details, his employment at the farm in 1984 and his subsequent role as a partner from 1994 in Anidak and the Partnership, the operation of those partnerships, the purchase of land, the estate litigation and the ultimate deterioration in the relationship between Steven and his parents.

2. Steven was not a satisfactory witness. He was very argumentative and defensive in cross-examination. He was evasive and did not answer questions and was prone to give speeches in support of his case. Senior counsel for Bevan and Valerie referred to, which I accept, Steven’s explanations for the statements made in the letters written by his lawyers dated 26 January 2020, 8 February 2020 and 10 March 2020, as examples of Steven being evasive and not directly answering questions.

3. Steven would not admit obvious inconsistencies between his evidence and some of the exhibits including statements made by him in earlier affidavits or in letters written by his lawyers.

4. In some cases, Steven’s evidence was shown to be false or inconsistent with other evidence. This included:

   (1)his evidence about purchasing plant and equipment since the termination of the Partnership and the commencement of his business, Copper Coast Farming. Copper Coast Farming carries on the business of farming on the Farming Land, the land owned by Steven and the Trust and some further land owned by third parties which Steven farms through lease agreements and share farming agreements. In cross-examination, Steven said that the business had only purchased two items of plant and equipment since August 2020 but that was clearly false. As senior counsel for Steven properly acknowledged, subpoenaed material indicated that in the period from August 2020, Steven had purchased, although not taken delivery of two new headers at a cost of $841,500, a tractor at a cost of $912,226 (exhibit pages 3 and 19 of exhibit R302) and had purchased 12 items of plant and equipment (page 112 of exhibit R122). Steven’s evidence to the Court that the only plant and equipment that he had purchased since August 2020 for himself or the Trust was a set of rollers was false. The deprecation schedule for the year ending 30 June 2021 shows 12 items of plant and equipment purchased in the period from October 2020 to June 2021 (p112 of exhibit R122). Steven said that the items that were purchased were every day, working items. Although some of the items were of not great value, they could not be described as everyday items in the sense of being insignificant. They included a tractor, 2 trailers, a cultivator as well as 2 motor vehicles. They were not so insignificant that it was reasonable for Steven have omitted to refer to them as purchases of plant and equipment made since August 2020. Further, the plant and equipment purchased in August 2022 in the sum of $912,226 and $841,500 were clearly significant purchases. I consider the failure of Steven to refer to them when giving evidence that he had only purchased two items of plant and equipment since August 2020 to be a matter that adversely affects his credit;

   (2)Steven gave evidence that he had not spoken to his solicitor during the course of his cross-examination when an examination of his phone records showed that he had done so;

   (3)Steven gave evidence that he understood the way in which the accountant had attributed amounts to various partners and his understanding went back some years when that was not the case;

   (4)statements he made in evidence before this Court were contrary to the statements made by his solicitors in communications with the solicitors for Bevan and Valerie in 2020;

   (5)statements he made in evidence before this Court were contrary to the statements he made in affidavit material which were filed in the Supreme Court and in intervention proceedings in the Magistrates Court;

   (6)his evidence in Court about the value of his assets was inconsistent with statements that he made to his bankers, the NAB; and

   (7)his evidence denying that Mr Northcott warned him of the dangers of signing an unconditional contract was false.

5. Senior counsel submitted that Steven’s evidence should be considered in the context of his relatively low level of sophistication, particularly in relation to matters involving the NAB and the value of his assets. I also take into account that it was to some extent understandable that Steven would be defensive, given what was at stake for him in these proceedings. I accept that the statements referred to in numbered sub-paragraph (3) above that he understood how his accountants had attributed various amounts could be excused by those matters. However, that does not excuse the inconsistent and false evidence, the failure to admit obvious matters or the general evasiveness of his evidence. I consider those matters to adversely affect his credit.

6. Senior counsel for Bevan and Valerie invited the Court to find that Steven fell into that category of witness whose evidence should not be accepted on any issue unless it was an admission against interest or was corroborated by a contemporaneous document or other credible or reliable evidence.

7. I do not accept that Steven falls into that category of witness. However, the matters raised above and the general evasiveness of Steven as a witness cause me to have doubts about his evidence. Where it conflicts with the evidence of Bevan, I prefer the evidence of Bevan.

8. I accept Mr Northcott as an honest and reliable witness. He was an independent witness who did his best to assist the Court. His evidence concerned the circumstances surrounding the purchase of Lou’s land by Steven through the Trust. In one instance, the evidence of Mr Northcott was contrary to the evidence of Steven. Mr Northcott gave evidence by reference to his notes (exhibit R111) that at a meeting with Steven, Bevan and Valerie he told Steven of the risk of signing an unconditional contract to purchase Lou’s land without formal finance being in place. Steven gave evidence that Mr Northcott was at fault in not ensuring the contract was subject to finance. I accept the evidence of Mr Northcott on this issue. I do so for three reasons: first, I accept him as a credible witness; secondly, his evidence accords with general commercial practice of an experienced banker; and thirdly, he has made a contemporaneous note that supports his position.

9. I also accept Mr Ellis, who was the accountant for Anidak and the Partnership for many years, as an honest and credible witness. He was first engaged by the Bull family to act as their accountant in about 1997 or 1998. He assisted the Court with regard to financial and accounting matters relating to the Partnership, including the accounting treatment for particular transactions. I will deal later in these reasons with the accounting treatment for purchases of land made by Steven or the Trust, the purchase of the Kadina land and the construction of a house on that land, the funding of the payment settling the estate litigation and the distribution of profits. I accept the following broad propositions which arose from the evidence of Mr Ellis:

   1.The farm was operated as a single entity;

   2.No rent for the use of farming land was paid by the Partnership to the Trust other than a book entry for tax purposes;

   3.No rent for the use of farming land was paid by the Partnership to Steven or Bevan; and

   4.Steven made no initial contribution to Anidak but did to the Partnership (see exhibit A81 and note 1 in exhibit A82).

10. Ryan, the son of Steven, was a very minor witness who gave evidence on two relevant issues; first, as to his career intentions when he finishes school and university and secondly, the events in his life that Steven missed because he was working. I accept Ryan as an honest and credible witness.

11. Liz, the partner of Steven, gave general evidence about her relationship with Steven, their life in Kadina and her employment, and her bookkeeping work for Copper Coast Farming. I accept her evidence about their relationship, family life, employment and Steven missing family events. Liz also gave evidence on two more contentious topics.

12. First, she said that in about 2009 when their transportable house was being extended that Valerie said to her (in the presence of Steven and Bevan) that “will kind of do for now because you’ll move into our house when we eventually retire into Kadina.”  I accept that Valerie said these words to Liz. I consider this evidence to be of little weight given: (a) that Steven did not give evidence about this statement or that it caused him to have some expectation; (b) it says nothing about the ownership of the Farming Land; and (c) Bevan was not cross- examined about this topic.

13. Secondly, Liz gave evidence relating to an offer made that Steven and she made on 10 March 2020 (exhibit R108) that Bevan transfer to them sections 899 and 617-624 (386 acres) and they would agree not to be entitled to any further benefit from the estates of Bevan and Valerie. She said, in cross-examination, that the offer was made so that they could stop arguing and move on with their lives, not because Steven did not have an expectation of receiving all of the farm, without being required to make any payment, under his parents’ will. I do not find that a convincing rationale if Steven had an expectation of receiving all of the Farming Land. I do not accept that as Steven’s and her reasoning at that time and consider it to be an ex post facto justification for the position that was communicated in the 10 March 2020 letter.

14. Bevan and Valerie called three witnesses, Bevan and two of his children, Mark Bull (Mark) and Megan King (Megan).

15. Bevan was a credible and generally reliable witness. He answered questions directly in cross-examination and was not evasive. He also gave evidence about a range of topics including the history of the farm, the various partnerships that operated the farm, his response to the promises that Steven allegedly made, the estate litigation, the breakdown of the relationship with Steven, his wills, and the objectives that he sought to achieve in those wills.

16. I preferred his evidence to that of Steven. His evidence was consistent and coherent. Despite these matters, his evidence needed to be scrutinised with care. He has an obvious and material interest in the subject matter of the proceedings and there could be an obvious temptation to recall matters that occurred many years ago in a favourable light and with the benefit of hindsight.

17. Steven submitted that Bevan’s evidence should be considered in light of Bevan’s own experiences. That is, Bevan worked on the farm for low wages and with the promise from his father, Francis, that he would ultimately inherit the farming land owned by Francis. Steven submitted that he was in the same position as Bevan had been with his father and that it was natural therefore that Bevan would make a similar promise to Steven as Francis had to Bevan. I do not accept that logic. Steven was in a very different position to Bevan in that Bevan had ensured that Steven was given the opportunity to purchase land in his own name and had facilitated that purchase of land. That distinction between the respective positions of Bevan and Steven means that there is not necessarily an equivalence in the promises that were made. There are other significant differences between the respective positions of Bevan and Steven such that it cannot be said that because Bevan had received a promise from Francis that he would inherit all the Farming Land, that Bevan then made the same promise to Steven. Those differences included that Ian and Bevan were forced by Francis to leave school at 14 and 13 years of age while Steven left voluntarily. Bevan and Ian initially received no wages. Ian continued to work on the farm until about 1993. Francis ceased working on the farm in 1966 when he was 39 years of age while Bevan continued until 2015 when he was 69 years of age. Francis owned the land upon which the farming operations were conducted. Bevan at that time only held a small portion of that land in his own name (section 899).

18. Steven also referred to Bevan’s cross-examination about what was described as the Bull family tradition of passing down farming land and keeping it in the Bull family. Steven submitted that Bevan’s evidence on this topic was inconsistent in that whilst denying that there was such a family tradition, he said:

    QDid you also want to keep Francie’s land because you and Steven were using it in your business and you wanted to keep using it.

    ANo, I wanted to keep it because we had already paid for it. We had worked to earn the money to pay for it and I couldn’t see why he could take it and sell it. We had put all our life into it to have it.

19. As senior counsel for Steven acknowledged, Bevan did not specify who he was referring to when he said “we”, although it was submitted that in the context Bevan was referring to himself and Steven. Even accepting Bevan was referring to himself and Steven (which is not clear), in the quoted passage, Bevan is denying the right of Ian to sell the land. I do not consider that the passage evidences an acceptance of any family tradition of passing down the land in the circumstances then existing.

20. In his written submissions, Steven referred to some alleged inconsistencies in Bevan’s evidence. He referred to Bevan’s evidence about section 899 (the block of land that Francis gave to Bevan as a wedding gift in 1964). Bevan gave evidence that the land was significant to him because that is where he and Valerie lived and built their house. I do not consider Bevan to have given inconsistent evidence on this topic. Steven referred to Megan’s evidence that Bevan had told all of the children that Steven would receive section 899. Megan’s evidence was relating to what Bevan had told them about his 2009 will. Clearly, that was the effect of the 2009 will. It was not inconsistent with any evidence Bevan gave about section 899. Bevan gave evidence that he would never have promised the block to Steven.

21. Steven also contended that there was an inconsistency between Bevan’s evidence about the effect of his 2020 will, which was that it was likely that all of the land that he owned would have to be sold, and his admitted intention in the period between 1995-2015 that he wanted to leave section 899 to Steven so as to ensure that Steven would have a farm to operate even without the land then owned by Francis. There is no inconsistency in those statements. A change in position about section 899 does not evidence a lack of credit on the part of Bevan.

22. Steven also referred to Bevan’s evidence about the transportable house and the inconsistency between Bevan’s evidence that it was never the plan for Steven and Liz to move into the farmhouse because they did not like the place and then saying that Steven was going to renovate the farmhouse. The passage relied upon by Steven for that inconsistency ignores Bevan’s clear evidence that the renovations proposed by Steven were not for the purpose of him moving into the farmhouse.

23. Steven submitted that Bevan’s evidence about the 2009 will was not convincing and was a retrospective explanation to support his defence to these proceedings. I deal with this issue later in these reasons. For present purposes, while there may have been an element of retrospective analysis by Bevan in relation to his 2009 will, I do not consider his evidence to be dishonest.

24. Mark gave evidence. I find him to be a credible and reliable witness although he could properly be considered to be a minor witness. I accept the submission of senior counsel for Steven that it was possible that Bevan and Valerie might have said different things to Steven from what they said to their other children. Therefore, the fact that Mark or Megan may have been told something by Bevan or Valerie in the absence of Steven carries little weight.

25. Mark’s evidence covered four main topics. First, he gave evidence that in 2008 there was a discussion about the small inheritance that Valerie had received from her mother’s estate. He said that in that discussion, it was stated the family didn’t want to have that type of situation in their family and would try to do everything to make sure everyone would get an equal share. Although Mark was not challenged in cross-examination on this topic, I consider that a conversation that occurred 15 years ago relating to their mother’s inheritance is of little weight in assessing what may or may not have promised to Steven. There is no evidence that Steven positively agreed to the proposition that everyone was to receive equal shares or what that meant, given that at that time Francis still held in his name the majority of the land.

26. Secondly, Mark also gave evidence about conversations that occurred over the years at Christmas times that his parents wanted the home land to be divided between the five children in equal shares. He said that the home land was their own land. Again, I do not place a lot of weight on those discussions, even though it was not challenged. At the time of those discussions, Francis still held the vast majority of the land in his own name. The reference to “home land” is ambiguous and it is not clear to what land his parents were referring. Further, in cross-examination, Mark admitted that he wasn’t sure whether Steven had heard those conversations given that there at least a dozen people at Christmas.

27. Thirdly, Mark gave evidence about his assets which can properly be described as relatively modest. He has a house that he jointly owns with his wife in Woodville West which is valued at about $670,000 with a minimal mortgage. He has superannuation benefits of about $586,000 and gross income from his employment as a sales representative of about $71,000 per annum. He has received minimal assistance from his family over the years.

28. Fourthly, Mark also gave evidence about the breakdown of his relationship with Steven. He said that on Boxing Day 2017, Steven and his family were visiting Mark’s family. A discussion occurred about the Farming Land and Mark suggested that it go into a family trust. Steven said that there was no need to look at that because he was going to take the whole farm for himself. Mark said that was not what he had been told and that his parents had always said that we would all get an equal share. Steven rejected that proposition and an argument ensued. The relationship between Mark and Steven ended finally in 2020.

29. Megan gave evidence. She is the youngest child of Bevan and Valerie. Her evidence was largely unchallenged. I found her to be a credible and reliable witness and accept her evidence.

30. She gave evidence on a number of topics. She gave evidence about a discussion with Bevan about the Kadina development (which was a proposed development on land then owned jointly by Francis, Ian and Bevan on the outskirts of Kadina) and an offer that he had received from a developer to purchase the Kadina land for $3 million. That is of course hearsay but it is relevant for the fact that he told her that price. Bevan also told her that he and Valerie had signed their wills and that Steven would receive the block where Bevan and Valerie’s house was situated and the remaining children would receive equally Bevan’s share from the sale of the Kadina blocks which was $1 million in total. Bevan told Megan this would value her share and the share of her siblings at about the same amount as Steven would receive. Megan said that Bevan always said that he wanted things to be equal although she could only recall being told that by him individually and not when other family members were present.

31. In about 2012, Megan said that she moved back to Kadina. After working elsewhere, she said in about 2015 she commenced working for the partnership as the bookkeeper. She said that Steven approached her to work for the Partnership because of her accounting background.

1. She gave evidence of an argument between her parents and Steven in October 2017. She said that Steven wanted to buy some further equipment. She said that her parents said that they were retiring and didn’t want to buy any more plant and equipment and incur further debt as everything was mortgaged. In response, she said that Steven said that they needed to get off the farm, that they didn’t want to advance the farm and that they should leave. Bevan then said that Steven could buy the farm but Steven said that he could not afford it and asked how much he could lease it for, to which Bevan said $80 per acre. Steven said that Bevan would not get paid that amount.

2. Megan also gave evidence about other discussions that she had with Steven in which Steven asked her to organise a family meeting with her other siblings because he said that when Bevan died, Steven would have to buy the land and he would not be able to pay a lump sum and would have to pay over a period of time. She said that they never had a meeting with the other siblings. The conversation about buying a farm is inconsistent with Steven being promised all of the Farming Land. Steven would not respond to a statement that he could buy the farm by asking how much he could lease it for if he had been promised that he would inherit the land, without having to make any payment.

3. Megan was not challenged on this evidence.

4. Megan gave evidence about discussions she had with Bevan and Valerie regarding the purchase of the land in Steven’s name. She said that Bevan said that he wanted to buy a farm for Steven and to set him up with a farm because he didn’t know what would happen in the future and he didn’t want a fight amongst the siblings, and possibly Francis or Ian. Steven said that he would buy Bevan and Valerie a house when they retired and was going to support them until they died. Megan said that in those discussions it was said that the land that Bevan owned was always going to be equally divided with all siblings. Megan said that she could not recall if Steven was present at these conversations. Given this statement, this evidence does not have any weight.

5. Megan gave evidence about her assets and income which are modest. She had a taxable income of $31,010 for the year ending 30 June 2022. She received Centrelink benefits over that year. She has a superannuation account balance of approximately $78,000 and negligible savings. She does not own any property and is renting the home where she lives and is a single parent. She said that she had received minimal support from her parents over the years other than a $20,000 loan to purchase a motor vehicle. She suffers from anxiety and depression.

6. Steven submitted that Megan’s evidence was of little assistance as she was not present at any of the conversations when Steven alleges that representations were made to him by Bevan and Valerie. That is correct. However, the evidence of Megan to which I have referred is relevant to the issues before the Court.

7. Valerie did not give evidence. In the normal course, it would be expected that she would have given evidence as she was present at some of the disputed conversations. Senior counsel for Steven invited me to draw a Jones v Dunkel[8] inference from her failure to give evidence. Steven referred to the fact that there had been no advance warning that Valerie was unable to be called and that in in his opening, senior counsel for Bevan and Valerie stated that he was committed to call Bevan and that he was potentially calling Valerie, Mark and/or Rachel.

   [8] (1950) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8.

8. Senior counsel for Bevan and Valerie submitted that the evidence indicated that Valerie’s health was such that she was not in a position to give evidence because her evidence would not have been reliable.

9. Bevan gave evidence about the physical and mental health of Valerie. He said that Valerie’s physical health had deteriorated significantly in the last few years. She had broken her shoulder and suffered from severe duodenal ulcers. He said that she gets confused fairly often and has difficulties with her memory and requires prompting. He said that she struggles to read documents and newspapers. He has noticed changes in her cognitive ability. He said that she is forgetful and mixes up dates. He said that she suffered from stress.

10. Mark gave evidence about his mother’s health. He described her physical health as being greatly impaired. He also said that she appears very withdrawn and it is difficult to engage her in conversation. He said that she appears anxious.

11. Megan gave evidence about her mother’s physical health conditions. She said that Valerie does not talk as much as she used to. She said that her mother’s memory had deteriorated in the last few years and she gets stressed.

12. I accept the evidence of Bevan, Mark and Megan about Valerie’s health which was not challenged in cross-examination.

13. The rule in Jones v Dunkel[9] states that an adverse inference may be drawn from the failure of a party to adduce particular evidence, where such evidence would reasonably have been expected. In Jones v Dunkel, Menzies J stated:[10]

    In my opinion a proper direction in the circumstances should have made three things clear: (i) that the absence of the defendant Hegedus as a witness cannot be used to make up any deficiency of evidence; (ii) that evidence which might have been contradicted by the defendant can be accepted the more readily if the defendant fails to give evidence; (iii) that where an inference is open from facts proved by direct evidence and the question is whether it should be drawn, the circumstance that the defendant disputing it might have proved the contrary had he chosen to give evidence is properly to be taken into account as a circumstance in favour of drawing the inference.

    [9] Ibid.

    [10] Ibid, 312.

14. Kitto J stated:[11]

    It was right enough to point out, in effect, that the evidence given might be the more readily accepted because it had been left uncontradicted, and that the omission to call Hegedus as a witness could not properly be treated as supplying any gap which the evidence adduced for the plaintiff left untouched.

    [11] Ibid, 308.

15. Davies A-JA (dissenting on the facts) in Ho v Powell[12] explained the principle as follows:

    The rule permits evidence to be given greater weight and an inference or inferences to be more readily drawn when the other party who might have called evidence to the contrary has chosen not to do so. In Commonwealth Australia v McLean (Court of Appeal, 31 December 1996, unreported), [(1996) 41 NSWLR 389)]. Handley JA and Beazley JA said ... the rule typically applies to strengthen or weaken an inference otherwise available on the evidence for the benefit of the party not in default.

    [12] (2001) 51 NSWLR 572 [76]; [2001] NSWCA 168.

16. Austin J in Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich[13] indicated that there are three conditions required for the application of the principle:

    1.   the missing witness would be expected to be called by one party rather than the other (which implies that the witness must be available to give evidence);

    2.   his evidence would elucidate a particular matter, which is a live matter at the trial; and

    3.   his absence is unexplained.

    [13] (2009) 75 ACSR 1 [449]; [2009] NSWSC 1229.

17. The onus of establishing an explanation for the absence of the witness, for the purposes of the principle in Jones v Dunkel, rests on the party against whom the principle would operate.[14]

    [14] Ibid [457], see also Cross on Evidence, at [1215] and the majority judgment in Smith v Samuels (1976) 12 SASR 573.

18. The principles in Jones v Dunkel were summarised in Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd:[15]

    The rule in Jones v Dunkel is that the unexplained failure by a party to call a witness may in appropriate circumstances support an inference that the uncalled evidence would not have assisted the party's case. That is particularly so where it is the party which is the uncalled witness. The failure to call a witness may also permit the court to draw, with greater confidence, any inference unfavourable to the party that failed to call the witness, if that uncalled witness appears to be in a position to cast light on whether the inference should be drawn.      [citations omitted]

    [15] (2011) 243 CLR 361; [2011] HCA 11 [63].

19. Steven referred to the decision in Payne v Parker[16] where the statement from Ward v Apprice[17] that the default “brings great slur on his cause” was quoted. I consider that overstates the effect of the failure to call a witness and prefer the explanation set out in Kuhl above.

    [16] [1976] 1 NSWLR 191, 201.

    [17] (1704) 6 Mod Rep 264; 87 E.R. 1011.

20. In this case, there is no doubt that Valerie would be expected to be called as a witness. She was a party to the litigation and was present at some of the disputed conversations. These included the conversations at the lunchtime discussions between her, Steven and Bevan and the 2009 discussions with Liz.

21. The relevant issue is whether her absence was explained. I consider that Bevan and Valerie have satisfied the onus of providing a satisfactory explanation as to why Valerie was not called to give evidence. Each of Bevan, Mark and Megan have given evidence about her mental decline. They have made observations about her anxiety, her confusion and loss of memory. I consider that they were well placed to make observations about her mental decline. That evidence was not challenged. Notwithstanding that the respondents did not choose to adduce medical evidence in support of their contention, the unchallenged evidence provides a proper explanation for not calling Valerie as it demonstrates that her evidence was unlikely to be reliable. I have considered the submission of Steven that in Bevan and Valerie’s opening, senior counsel left open the possibility that Valerie might give evidence and did not refer to her cognitive issues. While this is a relevant factor, the unchallenged evidence did provide a proper basis for not calling her as a witness. A person in her cognitive state would not be expected to give evidence. Therefore, I consider that Bevan and Valerie have discharged their onus of establishing that Valerie is unavailable to give evidence because of her mental condition and that the Jones v Dunkel inference should not be drawn against the respondents because of her failure to give evidence.

    The Land held by Steven and Bevan and its value

22. Up until his death in 2015, Francis owned a significant portion of the Farming Land. Bevan held only a small amount of land. He only owned section 899 in his own name. From 1996, Steven acquired land in his own name in 1996 and in 1999. In 2009, 2011 and 2013 he acquired land as trustee for the Trust. Later, in 2021 and 2022 receptively, Bull Land Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee for Trust acquired Lou’s land and Paddick’s farm.

23. The land owned by Steven in his own right and through the Trust (including the land owned by the Bull Land Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee for the Trust) is set out in the table which forms appendix A to these reasons. The date of acquisition, the area, the current valuation and the circumstances in which the land was acquired are also set out in the table. Colliers has provided a desktop valuation of the land (exhibit A75) and has valued the land owned by Steven and the Trust at $15,127,180. Colliers have also valued structures on that land in the sum of $580,000 making a total valuation in the sum of over $15.7 million.

24. Steven disagrees with those values and considers them too high. He considers the value to be inflated and that the price per acre is too high. He also says that the valuation does not take into account the vagaries of the land and some of the drawbacks to particular land. I note that the Colliers valuation is a desktop valuation and further the valuer was not provided with details of the past history of the property, including cropping records, yields, fertilizer purchased, etc. However, the Colliers valuation provides cogent evidence of the valuation of the land. This is not a case which requires a precise calculation of the value of the land.

25. In April 2020 (over two years prior to the trial), Knight Frank valued the land for valuation purposes in the sum of $9,650,000 (exhibit R100). That valuation did not include Paddick’s land which was acquired after the valuation. At that time, Steven, through Bull Holdings Pty Ltd, had entered into a contract to purchase Lou’s land but had not settled on that land. The valuation report (which included Lou’s land) noted that the contract price for Lou’s land was towards the lower end of the range.

26. In the statement of position that Steven submitted to the NAB on 4 April 2022 (p156 of exhibit R122), he ascribed a value to his land of $11.871 million.

27. A value of about $12-15 million for the land of Steven and the Trust is broadly supported by the above evidence.

28. The table which is annexed to these reasons also sets out details of the land held by Bevan and Valerie either wholly or jointly with others.

29. The total value of Bevan’s land holdings, according to the Colliers valuation, is $11,835,620, which includes the land in which he has a part interest.

30. Valerie has a 1/6th interest in section 552 which equates to a value, according to the Colliers valuation, of $13,650 and is also the owner of the property at 51 Graves Street Kadina which they purchased in 2014. That property is not part of the farm and was not part of the Colliers valuation. Bevan gave evidence that the rates notice valued the property at $550,000 but that it might sell for $600,000.

    The financial position of Bevan and Valerie and their children (other than Steven)

31. Bevan and Valerie’s other assets are the farm management deposits (which were paid for by the Partnership but reflected in their loan account with the Partnership), their bank accounts, some modest superannuation, the debt owed to them by Steven under the terms of the dissolution of the Partnership and their land in Kadina. Bevan said that he held one farm management deposit in his name worth $450,000 and Valerie still had one worth $75,000. They had $500,000 on term deposit (exhibit A291). About $803,000 is still owed to them by Steven as the final instalment under the terms of the Partnership Dissolution Agreement. Bevan said that the only other income that he currently receives is from the lease of his land to Steven. Bevan says that he has a small number of shares in Incitec. Those shares have a value of about $13,395, based on the number of shares set out in exhibit A292). If the value of the Farming Land is accepted as $11,835,620 and the Kadina land as $600,000, Bevan and Valerie’s total assets are about $14.277 million before some tax liabilities of about $392,000 and legal fees associated with this action are deducted.

32. I have already described the assets of Mark and Megan. In the case of Megan, those assets can be described as very modest and in the case of Mark, modest. They are obviously minimal compared to the assets of Steven or Bevan and Valerie.

33. Steven gave some evidence about the assets of his other siblings. He said that his sister, Sharee, is well off and owns a hotel and other property in Kadina. He agreed that as far as he knew his sister, Rachel and her husband lived in Plympton. She worked as a concierge and her husband as a traffic controller.

34. Bevan gave evidence about the assets of the other siblings. He confirmed the evidence about Mark and his wife in relation to their employment and house at Woodville. He said that Sharee purchased the hotel in Kadina with her brother-in-law and his wife and that they have an interest in that hotel. He confirmed the evidence about the employment of Rachel and her husband and their property at Plympton. He confirmed that Megan rented the property where she lives and had some mental health issues.

35. Documentary records (exhibits R189-219) relating to assets of Mark, Sharee, Rachel and Megan provide documentary support in relation to their respective landholdings, income, superannuation benefits and savings.

36. I make the following findings, again recognising that the evidence on this issue is general and not precise. However, I do not need to make findings about the exact financial position of each of those persons and it is sufficient if I make some general, broad-brushed findings.

37. Bevan and Valerie are well off and have sufficient money for their retirement (even if the Farming Land is excluded). Mark and Rachel, and their respective partners, own their homes and are employed, so it may be inferred have sufficient income to meet their expenses, although neither could be described as well off. Sharee appears to have more assets but not to the degree that Steven said in his evidence. Megan’s assets are very modest.

38. I accept the submission of senior counsel for Steven that the assets of his siblings are not directly relevant to the claim for a constructive trust and do not directly shed light on the issue as to whether or not the representations were made. The financial position of the siblings has potential relevance to the defence of Bevan and Valerie that relief in equity should be refused because it would be unfair to grant the relief, taking into account the financial and personal interests and moral claims of the siblings.[18]

    [18]  See [54.2] of the defence-revision 1.

    Pre 1984 background

39. Steven and Bevan both gave evidence about their personal background, their family background, the farming operations and purchases of the various parcels of land that made up the farm as at 1984. Documentary evidence also records the purchases of the land. None of that evidence was controversial and I make the findings set out below.

40. Bevan was born in 1945 and was therefore 77 years of age at the time of giving evidence. His parents were Francis and Ruth. Francis and Ruth had four children who, in chronological order, were Ian, Bevan, Teresa and Lawrence.

41. Bevan married Valerie in 1964 and have five children, Mark, Sharee, Steven. Rachel and Megan. Mark was born in 1965, Sharee in 1966, Steven in 1967, Rachel in 1979 and Megan in 1980.

42. Francis carried on the business of farming after World War 2. He initially carried on that business with his brother Lou and for a time they carried on business by way of a partnership, FD & LR Bull. They initially leased and then purchased in 1949 the farm known as Gordons which comprised about 750 acres.[19] That farm was purchased by Francis and Louis as tenants in common, with Francis holding a 2/3^rd interest and Louis holding a 1/3^rd interest. In 1962, Lou transferred his interest in that land to Francis and Francis transferred his interest in some other land to Lou. Lou stopped farming with Francis at that time.

    [19]  Bevan gave evidence that Gordons was about 750 acres although the records in Appendix A suggest about 646 acres. Nothing turns on that difference.

43. In 1957, Francis purchased the property known as Hancock’s farm which consisted of 210 acres. In 1963, Francis purchased part of the property known as Pedler’s farm. That comprised about 660 acres.[20] Ian and Bevan also purchased in 1963, in their joint names as tenants in common, part of that farm, such part comprising 57.47 ha or 142 acres.

    [20]  Bevan gave evidence that Pedlers was about 660 acres although the records in Appendix A suggest about 540 acres. Nothing turns on that difference.

44. Bevan left school after completing second year high school at aged 13, to work on the farm full time. His father arranged for him to be taken out of school. Ian left school at about 14 years of age. Bevan became a qualified electrician in about 1959. When Bevan commenced working on the farm he did not receive wages but only pocket money. He received minimal wages until 1964.

45. In 1964, when he married, Bevan received the transfer of some land (section 899), as a wedding present from Francis. That land comprised about 140 acres and had been part of Pedler’s farm. At that time, Bevan and Valerie were living in a brick shed on that land which they continued to live in for about 10 years, before they built a house next door to that shed. Bevan and Valerie both worked in off-farm jobs for a number of years. Bevan worked in off farm employment (at the same time as working on the farm) for about 10 years from 1958.

1. In 1966, Francis, Ian and Bevan bought, as joint tenants, Taits farm. Some of that land included blocks on the outskirts of Kadina which were described as Lot 441 George Street, Kadina. That land comprised about 490 acres.[21]

   [21]  Bevan gave evidence that Taits was about 490 acres although the records in Appendix A suggest about 506 acres. Nothing turns on that difference.

2. In 1967, Francis, Ian and Bevan purchased in joint names about 30 acres from John Bull (the uncle of Bevan and Ian).

3. In 1982, Francis, Ruth (Francis’ wife), Ian, Helen (Ian’s wife), Bevan and Valerie purchased as tenants in common the land described as Heaven’s farm from Joseph Heaven.

4. From 1966, the farming business was carried on by FD Bull & Sons. Bevan was a partner in that partnership from that time. Bevan received only just enough to live on and Valerie undertook off-farm work, including as a hairdresser and as an employee at Woolworths. Francis ceased active work on the farm at about that time. The old partnership of FD & LR Bull no longer carried on business. Steven gave evidence that Lou retired from the partnership in 1982 and thereafter his land was rented to the partnership that was conducting its business over the farming land until Steven purchased the land in 2020 and 2021. The date on which Lou retired might not be accurate, but I otherwise accept the evidence relating to Lou.

5. As at 1984, Bevan held about 140 acres in his own name and with the joint titles to which I have referred, held about 390 acres in total. That position remained the same as at 1996.

6. Bevan said that he was working on a promise. Bevan gave evidence, which I accept, that Francis had promised Ian and him that they were paying for the land and it would be their land. Francis said “you pay for it, it will be yours.” Bevan said that the same promise was made to Ian and him. The farm was not particularly profitable at this time.

   Evidence concerning the circumstances in which Steven joined as an employee in 1984 and the events from 1984-1994

7. Steven gave evidence that everyone knew that he was destined to come home and work on the farm. He had helped out on the farm when he was small. He left school at year 10. He said that working on the farm was all that he ever wanted to do and Bevan and Valerie knew that he was going to be a farmer. He said that his aim was to work on the farm. He said that he just came home to work on the farm and his parents didn’t really encourage him to finish year 12. He said that when you come to work on the farm you are committed to that farm and there is never any talk of leaving. He said that the farming land is left for the next generation.

8. Steven said that when he came home to work on the farm, he worked for the partnership FD Bull & Sons. He said that he was paid a wage but could not recall how much but said that it was a couple of hundred dollars per week or so. It was the bare minimum. He said that in a standard week he would work about 40 hours but could work 70 or 80 hours per week in busy times. He said that by this time Francis had retired into Kadina but used to come out to the farm regularly. Steven agreed in cross-examination that he was paid average wages compared to other workmen. He lived at home and did not pay rent during this period.

9. Steven said that every time that he had a conversation with Bevan about the farm in the period between 1984-1990, he was promised the entire farm. Steven said that when he started working on the farm in 1984, Bevan said that he was going to give him the farm. Steven said that there was no reason for him to have a discussion with Francis because Francis was going to leave the farm to Bevan. Steven said Ian had no interest in the farm, was lazy and had 4 daughters who were never going to take over the farm. He said at that time, there was no discussion that he would pay a fair price for the farm.

10. In 1990, Steven requested that a house be bought or built for him to move into. At that time, Steven was engaged to a former girlfriend. He approached Bevan about his request and ultimately it was agreed that a transportable house would be built on land owned by Francis, Bevan and Ian. Steven gave evidence that he did not worry about putting his transportable house on the land owned by Bevan, Ian and Francis because he thought that the land would end up being left to him as it was part of the farm. He said that he knew that the land was jointly owned and they had all agreed that he could build a house there. He said that the transportable house was the cheapest option and they discussed that it was not worth building a large brick house and spending a lot of money when the promise was for him to move into the farmhouse. Steven said that he was told that by Bevan and that is why the purchase price was kept to a minimum and the transportable home was the cheapest option. Steven has lived in the transportable home since 1990. He does not pay rent for that house or for the use of the land. Steven said that he thought that he would only be living in the transportable house for a temporary period. He said he preferred to live in a normal brick house. Steven denied that the reason why a transportable house was built on the land was because they did not know who would own the land in the future and he might have to move elsewhere.

11. Steven gave evidence that Ian decided to leave the partnership because he was not happy with the way in which the farm was heading. He said that Ian was only interested in grazing sheep and the farm was moving towards growing crops and changing farm practices. Further, Ian had four daughters who were not interested in farming.

12. Bevan gave evidence that he did not encourage Steven to leave school, although Steven did in fact leave at the end of year 10. In cross-examination, he said that he was not upset when Steven decided to work on the farm but he encouraged him to get some off-farm experience.

13. Ultimately, Francis, Ian and Bevan agreed to employ Steven in the FD Bull & Sons partnership as a farm labourer. Bevan said that Steven was paid the same wage as other employees or contractors at that time. The wages records (exhibit R280) showed that as at 1990 Steven was receiving $595 a fortnight which went up to $620 per fortnight as the award went up. The records also show that Steven received superannuation payments from about 1993 when superannuation was introduced. Steven had the use of a motor vehicle in the period from 1984 to 1994.

14. In the period from 1984-1994, the work on the farm was undertaken by Bevan, Ian and Steven. Francis attended occasionally. Steven’s siblings did not work on the farm.

15. Bevan gave evidence about Steven’s request in 1990 to build a house on the farming property. He said that he discussed the request with Francis and Ian and they decided that the house should be a transportable because there was no security as to who was going to own the land. The house was situated on part of the property that had previously been Tait’s farm and was then held by Francis, Ian and Bevan jointly. Bevan said that there were some expenses connected with the building of the transportable house that were paid for by the partnership, FD Bull & Sons, such as electrical work and a rainwater tank. Bevan said that Francis and Ruth loaned Steven the sum of $10,000 and the partnership loaned him the sum of $14,000 for the construction of the transportable house. Those amounts were repaid by Steven. The Partnership did not require interest to be paid by Steven but Bevan thought Francis did require interest to be paid on his loan.

16. Bevan gave evidence denying that he promised in 1984 to leave all of the Farming Land to Steven in his will. Bevan said that Francis had made a promise to him and Ian that the farming land (owned by Francis) would be left to them both. He said that once Ian left the farm, Francis said to him that Ian would not get the land but Bevan would have to pay Ian for his share. Francis said that he had put a value on the amount that was to be paid to Ian but did not tell Bevan that value. Bevan said that he did not discuss the matter with Ian at the time but that when Francis died, Ian maintained a claim over half of Francis’ land. Bevan said that Ian was aggrieved over the circumstances in which he left the farm in 1993.

17. In cross-examination, it was put to Bevan that he did not relay to Steven the discussion he had with Ian and Francis about the uncertainty as to future ownership of the land. Bevan said that he did. Bevan denied that he said to Steven to go ahead and put the transportable house on the land because one day he would be moving into the farmhouse.

18. In 1993, Ian decided to leave the partnership. Bevan gave evidence that when advised of Ian’s leaving, Francis was upset and demanded to be included in the new partnership and said that if he was not included, he would sell up.

    Findings concerning the circumstances in which Steven joined as an employee in 1984 and events in the period from 1984-1994

19. Steven left school at the end of year 10 and commenced working on the farm at that time. Steven had always wanted to be a farmer and that was understood to be the case within the family. Steven decided to leave school at that time. Steven was not encouraged by Bevan and Valerie to leave school but equally he was not discouraged from doing so. These findings are consistent with the evidence of Bevan and Steven.

20. On commencing work on the farm, Steven worked as an employee of the partnership FD Bull & Sons. He worked with Bevan and Ian and sometimes Francis. He was paid the normal wage and later, the award wage. The evidence from Bevan was clear on this point and is supported by the later documentary records (exhibit 280). Steven was vague about the amount he was received but did not deny that he was receiving a normal wage. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Steven also received leave entitlements (see the Deed dated 9 July 1994, exhibit R99). There is no evidence to suggest that Steven could have received a greater sum working somewhere else. Senior counsel for Steven conceded in her closing address that Steven had not made out the claim that he was not receiving wages, superannuation and leave entitlements in this period.

21. During the period from 1984-1994, the farming operations were carried on by Bevan, Ian and Steven. None of Steven’s siblings ever worked on the farm. Francis owned all of the land upon which the farming operations were conducted, with the exception of section 899, which was transferred from Francis to Bevan in 1964 as a wedding gift and some relatively small parcels of land which were held as tenants in common. There was no controversy about these matters.

22. The transportable house was erected in 1990 at a time when Ian was still a partner and working on the farm and might be expected to inherit all or some of the Farming Land. The fact that the home was placed on land jointly owned by Francis, Bevan and Ian provided a reason for the home being transportable as the future ownership of that land was not, at that time, clear. I do not consider any inference can be drawn from the fact that a transportable home was erected that Steven had been promised that one day he would inherit the farm and move into the farmhouse. I do not consider that Steven could have formed any view that he would have moved into the farmhouse as at that time either Bevan or Ian might have been left that land by Francis.

23. Ian left the farm in 1993. The circumstances of why he left are not clear and in the absence of evidence from Ian, it is not possible to make any definitive finding as to the reasons for his departure. A Deed dated 9 July 1994 (the Deed) (exhibit R 99) was entered into dissolving the partnership between the then partners of FD Bull & Sons, Francis, Ruth Ian, Helen, Bevan and Valerie. The Deed records two relevant matters: first, that Steven was paid the sum of $5400 representing his annual leave entitlements and secondly, Ian would receive the sum of $100,000 for his entitlements as a partner. Bevan gave evidence that this sum of $5400 was paid to Steven. Steven said that he could not recall whether or not he received that sum. Given the terms of the Deed, the evidence of Bevan and the fact that Steven could not recall whether or not he received the sum, I am satisfied the sum was paid. That payment indicates that Steven received his annual leave entitlements.

24. As to the payment of the $100,000 to Ian, Bevan gave evidence, which I accept, that the payment accorded with his recollection of the net assets of the partnership, being plant and equipment and grain worth about $300,000 and therefore Ian being entitled to 1/3^rd of that amount.

25. I accept Bevan’s evidence that Francis had said that he would leave the farming land that he owned to Bevan and Ian equally as Bevan and Ian had worked on the farm and invested their wages in the farm. Francis did not make any promise during this time that Bevan, to the exclusion of Ian, would receive the farming land.

26. I will deal later in these reasons with the issue of what, if any, representations or promises were made by Bevan to Steven during the period between 1984-1994 that one day the entire farm would be Steven’s if he continued to work on the farm and invest his work and wages in the farm. I do so because a determination of this issue can only be made after considering all of the evidence, including some later letters sent by Steven’s lawyers and affidavits that he has signed.

    Evidence about Steven joining the Anidak partnership in 1994 and the Partnership in 1995

27. Steven gave evidence that at the time that he became a partner in Anidak and the Partnership, Bevan said that Steven was going to be the next generation to take on the farm. He said that he was told that the plant and equipment was always left behind in the partnership for the next generation and that is how the farm is built up. He said Francis wanted the farm to continue and expected Steven to take on the farm.

28. Steven gave evidence that in 1994 the promises that had been made to him when he was working an employee on the farm were repeated. He said that when he entered into the Partnership, he was committed to farming and the Partnership. Steven said that Bevan said to him “are we going to give it a go” and everyone agreed that they would.

29. Steven said that Valerie was present for the discussions which usually took place around the kitchen table between him, Bevan and Valerie. His siblings were not present for those discussions. He said that Valerie would sometimes say “what are the other kids getting out of all of this” and Bevan said in response that “you put your money in, you do the work here, it’s yours, it’s yours for the future…”. Bevan said that if you don’t work and put in, you are not entitled to have any of the farm. Steven said that the topic of the other siblings came up from 1994 onwards. He said that it was discussed more over the years as more assets were purchased. Steven said that from 1994, he was promised everything and that the land and everything would stay with him for the generations to come and the other siblings would be sorted out.

30. Steven said that his understanding was that his siblings had a good idea that they were not going to get any of the land or the business. He said that there was a lot of different discussions as to how something would be left to his siblings. He said if money had to be paid to his siblings, it would be paid over a period of time, not in a lump sum. The money would be a helping hand when the siblings needed it or something like that. He said no amounts of money were discussed. It was just a gesture to help them out. It was a token of some sort. Steven said that his mother always raised the topic of what about the other children and his father said that the other children were not working, they have not spent a day here. He said those arguments were never resolved.

31. Steven gave evidence about a plan that all the money would be put back into the farm. They would all build up the farm. When they retired, Bevan and Valerie would move to Kadina and the money from the farm would build them a house and fund their retirement. Steven described it as an unspoken plan but they would sit down and discuss it and everyone was heading down that path.

32. Steven gave evidence that if the promise had not been made (which included the land, the plant and equipment and moving into the farmhouse), he would have left the farm and there would have been no reason for him to continue. He said that he was working towards the farm. He said that he could have got a job working on a farm up the road and that could have been a lot more profitable and that he could have built a house in the town. He said that he would probably have earned more money and been more stable working as an employee. He said he would have made the same decision in the late 1990s although it would depend on how much debt he owed. Steven gave evidence as to the effect on his life that his long working hours had and how he missed many events in the children’s life.

33. Steven said that the Partnership used money and machinery that came from Anidak.

34. Bevan gave evidence about the formation of a new partnership, Anidak, in 1994, following the departure of Ian. Anidak was a partnership between Francis, Ruth, Bevan, Valerie and Steven. Steven did not make any capital contribution on the formation of Anidak. Bevan, Valerie, Francis and Ruth made the capital contributions. Bevan said they contributed the plant and equipment from the old partnership, FD Bull & Sons, and some seed, fertiliser and working capital. He said that based on the $100,000 that they paid Ian as his partnership entitlements under the Deed, the value of the capital contribution was about $300,000 in total.

35. The following year, the BJ, VJ and SW Partnership (the Partnership) was formed. Valerie, Bevan and Steven were the partners of the Partnership. The capital contributions to the Partnership were made from the Anidak partnership (see exhibit A82). The Partnership was formed because Bevan and Steven were interested in buying land and plant and equipment. Francis did not want to purchase any further machinery and said that it they wanted to purchase any further machines, they would have to go out on their own. Bevan said that Anidak contributed plant and equipment to the Partnership.

36. Bevan said that the Partnership began to lease more farming land and introduced new crops. Valerie did not actively undertake the work of the Partnership but was involved in the decision making from time to time. The Partnership took over from Anidak and gradually the activities of Anidak diminished over time.

37. Bevan gave evidence that when Steven became a partner in Anidak he did not promise to leave the farming land to Steven in his will or that Steven would receive that land. He said that he never promised to leave Steven all of his land. He said that he did not promise to sell to Steven all of the land but said that he might do so. He said from the time that Steven purchased his land, there were discussions that if Steven wanted Bevan’s land, it would be for sale to him. Bevan said a possible price was not discussed. Bevan said that he and Valerie always talked about keeping it fair with the other children.

    Findings as to the entry into the Anidak and the Partnership in 1994

38. Steven became a partner in Anidak and the Partnership in 1994 and 1995 respectively. When Anidak was established, Steven did not make any capital contributions to that partnership. Bevan and Valerie made capital contributions that totalled about $300,000, being assets of the old FD Bull & Sons partnership. The assets of Anidak were used as the capital contributions to the Partnership. These matters were not in dispute and are confirmed by the records of Anidak and the Partnership, the Deed and the evidence of Mr Ellis.

39. Francis, Ruth, Bevan, Valerie and Steven were members of Anidak. Bevan, Steven and Valerie were members of the Partnership. The Partnership was formed because Bevan and Steven had different ideas from Francis as to how they wished the business to be conducted in the future. Valerie did not perform any substantial work for the Partnership. Steven made a capital contribution upon the formation of the Partnership through his interest in Anidak.

1. The elements of proprietary estoppel by acquiescence are:[107]

   (1)the plaintiff forms an assumption that he or she has or will have a proprietary interest in property owned wholly or partly by the defendant (assumption);

   (2)the defendant knows that the plaintiff has formed that assumption, it is erroneous and the plaintiff is acting on it but remains silent when the defendant has a duty to inform the plaintiff that the assumption is erroneous (representation by silence);

   (3)the conduct of the defendant in remaining silent in that knowledge and in breach of that duty causes or materially contributes to the continuation of that assumption by the plaintiff (reliance);

   (4)the defendant takes action in change of his or her position in reliance on that assumption (inducement);

   (5)the plaintiff would suffer detriment if the defendant were permitted to depart from the assumption (detriment); and

   (6)it would in all the circumstances be unconscionable for the defendant to depart from the assumption (unconscionability).

   (citations omitted)

   [107] E Co v Q [2018] NSWSC 442, [921] citing Carter v Brine [2015] SASC 204, [326].

2. Although there is some authority that suggests that the remedy for estoppel by acquiescence is limited to preventing a respondent from profiting from the applicant’s mistake, it now appears that proprietary estoppel share common remedial considerations.[108]

   [108] E Co v Q [2018] NSWSC 442, [1174], [1177].

3. The case for estoppel by acquiescence is an entirely derivative claim. The pleaded claim is that Valerie was present when Bevan made the promise and repeated promise to Steven and did not expressly disclaim the promise and repeated promise.[109] As the primary claim in estoppel by encouragement against Bevan has failed, it also follows that the claim against Valerie for estoppel by acquiescence must also fail. I have found that the promises were not made. Therefore, Valerie cannot have adopted or acquiesced to the promise. The same findings that I have made in relation to reliance and detriment in the estoppel by encouragement also apply to the estoppel by acquiescence claim against Valerie. Lastly, because the claim against Bevan has failed, the estoppel by acquiescence claim against Valerie could only give rise to a claim against the land held by Valerie. The only land owned by Valerie was one sixth of Lot 552, Drain Road Kadina and the Kadina home. The Kadina home is not part of the Farming Land.

   [109] Statement of Claim, [39] and[40].

   Joint Endeavour Constructive Trust

4. Steven has made a further claim seeking an order that a constructive trust be imposed in his favour based on the failure of a joint venture. Steven’s case is that there was a joint endeavour that included the Partnership and the Farming Land. The joint venture was to expand and improve the farm so as to make it more profitable and to build up its assets, both real property and plant and equipment, which would enable Bevan and Valerie and Steven to make a living and enable Steven to provide for Bevan and Valerie in their retirement, and ensure that Steven and his family would have a secure future in farming. Steven submitted that it was the breakdown in the family relationship, without fault, that terminated the joint endeavour.

5. There is no doubt that the joint endeavour, if that characterisation is appropriate, has been terminated. I am satisfied that it terminated without any relevant fault. It is not necessary to determine whether it terminated in 2017 as Steven claims or in 2020 following the dissolution of the Partnership.

6. The Courts have shown a willingness to impose a constructive trust requiring the legal owner of the land to hold land on trust for another in circumstances where the other person has made contributions to the acquisition, maintenance or renovation of property pursuant to a joint endeavour or relationship which has failed in circumstances where blame cannot be attached to either party.

7. In Muschinski v Dodds,[110] the High Court found that the parties held their respective legal interests in common upon trust for each other, to repay each his or her respective contributions to the venture. Deane J, (Mason J agreeing), held that it was appropriate to impose a constructive trust in the circumstances of that case to give effect to the general equitable principle which restores to a party contributions which he or she made to a joint endeavour which fails when the contributions have been made in circumstances in which it was intended that the other party should enjoy them.

   [110] (1985) 160 CLR 583, 614; [1985] HCA 78.

8. In Baumgartner v Baumgartner,[111]the High Court held that the assertion by one party after the relationship had ended that the property was his beneficially to the exclusion of any interest at all of the other, amounted to unconscionable conduct which attracted the intervention of equity and the imposition of a constructive trust at the suit of that other party.

   [111] (1987) 164 CLR 137, 147-148; [1987] HCA 59.

9. The underlying basis of the constructive trust is founded on the unconscionable conduct. As Deane J held in Muschinski v Dodds:[112]

   Like most of the traditional doctrines of equity, it operates on legal entitlement to prevent a person from asserting or exercising a legal right in circumstances where the particular assertion or exercise of it would constitute unconscionable conduct ... the principle operates in a case where the substratum of a joint relationship or endeavour is removed without attributable blame and where the benefit of the money or other property contributed by one party on that basis and for the purpose of the relationship or endeavour would otherwise be enjoyed by the other party in circumstances in which it was not specifically intended or specifically provided that that other party should so enjoy it. The content of the principle is that in such a case equity would not permit that other party to assert or retain the benefit of the relevant property to the extent that it would be unconscionable for him so to do.

   [112] (1985) 160 CLR 583, [14]; [1985] HCA 78.

10. In Shepherd v Doolan,[113] the Court referred to the following statement from Campbell J in West v Mead[114] as what an applicant must establish:

    ... a plaintiff needs to establish there is indeed a joint endeavour between the parties, in which expenditure is shared for the common benefit. It is also necessary to identify what the scope of that joint endeavour is. ... Further, for any couple, the scope of the joint endeavour they are engaged in might change from time to time. If, within the scope of a joint endeavour ...an asset is acquired, as a result of contributions both parties have made, and for a purpose of the ongoing joint endeavour of the parties, this gives rise to the presumption that the beneficial interest ought be shared equally. That presumption can be displaced if one party is able to show that the contributions, both financial and non-financial, to that asset should be regarded as unequal.

    [113] [2005] NSWSC 42, [32]-[33].

    [114] [2003] NSWSC 161, [59].

11. A variety of matters can be taken account when determining the contributions made by the respective parties. In Sivirtas v Sivirtas,[115] Kyrou J held:

    ... a court can take into account direct financial contributions to the purchase price of the property and incidental costs such as stamp duty, registration fees, solicitors’ fees and bank fees. However, a court is not limited to such expenditure. It can also take into account the pooling of financial resources, other financial contributions even in the absence of pooling, contributions of labour, and non-financial contributions or contributions in kind such as homemaking and parenting contributions. Further, the inquiry into whether the assertion by a party of his or her legal rights would be unconscionable can encompass events that occurred after the property was initially acquired. Expenditure on repairs and renovations of the property by a person asserting a constructive trust in respect of the property, where the expenditure is accepted by the legal owner of the property in the knowledge that it would improve the home and add to its value, can be considered as a contribution in quantifying the first person’s equitable interest under the constructive trust.

    [115] [2008] VSC 374, [132] quoted in E Co v Q [2018] NSWSC 442, [853].

12. In the context of a farming case, the principles enunciated in Nolan v Nolan[116] are applicable:

    The various contributions found to have been made by the respondent were relevant contributions when determining whether a constructive trust ought to arise having regard to the finding that the farming enterprise had been conducted by way of common endeavour. As was observed by Campbell J in West v Mead [2003] NSWSC 161; (2003) 13 BPR 24,431 at [62]:

    Part of the justification for imposing the Baumgartner constructive trust is that the parties have jointly been building up assets, on the basis that those assets will be available for the joint endeavour in future. Part of the reason why it can be unconscionable to let the legal title lie where it falls, if the relationship fails, is that each knew that the other was contributing to a common pool on the basis that the pool, and assets acquired from it, would be used for their ongoing common benefit. It is unconscionable for the party who ends up, at the end of the relationship, with a disproportionate share of the assets which were built up during the relationship, to keep those assets when he or she knew that that was the basis on which the assets were being built up.

    [116] [2015] QCA 199, [61].

13. In the present case, the claim for a constructive trust based on the above principles must fail for two reasons.

14. First, the common endeavour must be identified. The only common endeavour is the farming business which has been conducted over both Bevan’s land (and prior to that Francis’ land) and Steven’s land. That joint endeavour included a general plan to build up and improve the farm and expand it.

15. This common endeavour has failed. Steven built up assets during the course of the farming business through the acquisition of properties. His assets form part of the pool. Any unconscionability can only arise, if it is shown that it is unconscionable to let the legal title fall, where it lies. In this case, the legal title falls with Bevan owning some of the land and Steven owning some of the land. There is no unconscionability in reaching that result. Senior counsel for Steven submitted that this division did not fulfill Steven’s expectations given that it was Bevan and Steven who had generated the wealth. Steven’s expectation, ignoring the representations, could not exceed, on any view, on half of the assets of the joint endeavour. Steven is seeking substantially the whole of the assets of the joint venture -i.e. all of the Farming Land a well as keeping the land that he or his Trust owns.

16. Secondly, and related to that finding, given my finding that no representation had been made by Bevan to Steven that he would inherit all of the Farming Land, there is no basis to find that it is unconscionable for Bevan to retain the Farming Land that is in his name, with Steven keeping the Farming Land that is in his name or in the name of the Trust. That is, while I accept that it is not necessary in the ordinary course for there to be a promise as the basis to find a joint endeavour that might give rise to a claim for a constructive trust, in the present case, where Steven holds a substantial portion of the land in his own name, unconscionability can only arise if he was promised the whole of the land.

    Conclusion

17. For the reasons that I have expressed, I dismiss Steven’s claim.

    Appendix A

    Steven’s Land Holdings held either in his own name or through Bull Holdings Pty Ltd

Registered Proprietor	Section Name (Certificate Title Register Book Volume/Folio)	Date Acquired	Common Name or Description	Valuation	Adopted Property Area in Hectares (ha)
Steven Bull as trustee of the Bull Family Trust	Lot 92 Bulls Road, Kadina (Allotment 92 FP 214437, CT 6073/263)	8 March 2011 Purchase of land from Ian Rostyn Philbey.	Bulls Road	$540,850 (Arable Dryland)	37.30 ha
				$4,800 (Native Vegetation/ Support Land)	3.20 ha
				Total: $545,650	Total: 40.50 ha
	Lot 1 Ellis Road, Kadina (Allotment 135 FP 198316, CT 6090/859; Allotment 1 DP 91697, CT 6113/213)	9 October 2013 Purchase of land from Brenton and Edwina McRae.	Ellis Road	$635,100 (Arable Dryland)	21.90 ha (CT 6090/859)
					21.90 ha  (CT 6113/213)
					Total: 43.80 ha
	Lot 907 Adams Plains Road, Wallaroo (Section 907, CT 5464/588)	14 May 2009 Purchase of land from Peter Reginald Bruce.	Bruce’s property	$3,358,600 (Arable Land)	239.90 ha
				$5,500 (Native Vegetation/ Support Land)	3.70 ha
				Total: $3,364,100	Total: 243.60 ha
Steven Bull	325 Kennetts Road, Tickera (Section 62W, CT 5394/528; Section 62E, CT 5394/529; Section 61, CT 5395/531) Lot 60 Goodes Road, Tickera (Section 60, CT 5394/598)	21 June 1996 Purchase of Section 62W (CT 5394/528) and Section 62E (CT 5394/529) from Wenberley Pty Ltd. 25 June 1996 Purchase of Section 61 (Ct 5395/531) from Wenberley Pty Ltd. 11 March 1999 Purchase of Section 60 (CT 5394/598) from Paul Lealand Gardner.	Tickera property	$5,056,380 (Arable Land)	361.17 ha
				$6,450 (Native Vegetation/ Support Land)	4.30 ha
				Total: $5,062,830	Total: 365.47 ha
Bull Holdings Pty Ltd	Lot 912E Point Riley Road, Wallaroo Plain (Section 912E, CT 5674/73) 10018 Spencer Highway, Wallaroo Plain (Section 909, CT 5603/432)	Unknown date of acquisition of Section 909 (CT 5603/432) with Francis having 2/3 interest and Louis having 1/3 interest as tenants in common. 12 July 1957 Francis transferred his 2/3 interest in Section 909 (CT 5603/432) to Louis who possessed the remaining 1/3 interest. 8 March 1966 Purchase of Section 912E (CT 5676/73) from Evelyn Madeline Tait by Louis and Theresa Bull. 11 November 2016 Louis’ 3/3 interest in Section 909 (CT 5603/432) transferred to Theresa Bull pursuant to Louis’ will. 14 September 2020 Purchase of Section 912E (CT 5676/73) from Theresa Bull by Bull Holdings Pty Ltd. 10 February 2021 Purchase of Section 909 (CT 5603/432) from estate of Theresa Bull by Bull Holdings Pty Ltd.	Uncle Lou’s land	$4,930,100 (Arable Dryland)	352.15 ha
				$8,400 (Native Vegetation/ Support Land)	5.60 ha
				Total: $4,938,500	Total: 357.75 ha
	Section 63 Bulls Road, Kadina (Section 63, CT 6121/720)	2 June 2022 Purchase of land from Judith Margaret Paddick, Stephen Brian Paddick and Shane Michael Paddick by Bull Holdings Pty Ltd.	Paddick’s Farm	$581,000 (Arable Dryland)	40.47 ha
Total Value of Steven’s Holdings and Trust Holdings:				$15,127,180	1,045.52 ha

Bevan and Valerie Bull’s Land Holdings held wholly or jointly with others

Registered Proprietor	Section and Lot Name (Certificate Title Register Book Volume/Folio)	Date Acquired	Common Name or Description	Valuation	Adopted Property Area in Hectares (ha)
Bevan Bull	Lot 230 Bute Road, Kadina (Section 230, CT 5653/194; Sections 279-288, CT 5940/537)	12 July 1957 Purchase of land from Gordon and Frederick Hancock by Francis Bull. 22 September 2017 Transfer of interest from Francis to Bevan Bull pursuant to the will of Francis and Supreme Court order.	Hancock’s Farm	$1,241,490 (Arable Dryland)	40.90 ha (CT 5653/194)
					44.72 ha (CT 5940/537)
					Total: 85.62 ha
	Lot 918 Chatties Lane, Wallaroo (Section 918 Hundred of Wallaroo, CT 5797/625)	4 March 1963 Purchase of land from Emily Pedler by Francis Bull. 22 September 2017 Transfer of interest from Francis to Bevan Bull pursuant to the will of Francis and Supreme Court order.	Pedler’s Farm (part)	$230,400 (Arable Dryland)	38.40 ha
				$7,700 (Native Vegetation/ Support Land)	7.70 ha
				$6,900 (Saline Land)	27.60 ha
				Total: $245,000	Total: 73.70 ha
	542 Adams Plain Road, Wallaroo Plain (Section 898W, CT 5604/898; Section 900, CT 5835/991; Section 903, CT 5604/899; Section 904, CT 5832/963; Section 910, CT 5730/26) 236 Bulls Road, Kadina (Section 899, CT 5394/527) 203 Bulls Road, Kadina (Sections 617-619, CT 5720/23; Sections 620-624, CT 5817/790)	16 March 1949 Purchase of Section 903 (CT 5604/899) and Section 910 (CT 5730/26) (‘Gordon’s Farm’) from the Gordons, as tenants in common, with Francis Bull possessing 2/3 interest, and Louis 1/3 interest. 12 February 1962 Transfer of Louis’ interest in Section 903 (CT 5604/899) and Section 910 (CT 5730/26) (‘Gordon’s Farm’) to Francis pursuant to land swap. 4 March 1963 Purchase of Section 898W (CT 5604/898), Section 899 (CT 5394/527), Section 900 (CT 5835/991), and Section 904 (CT 5832/963) (‘Pedler’s Farm’) from Emily Pedler by Francis Bull. 17 July 1964 Transfer of Section 899 (CT 5394/527) to Bevan Bull from Francis as a wedding gift. 3 June 1966 Purchase of Sections 617-619 (CT 5720/23) and Sections 620-624 (CT 5817/790) (‘Tait’s Farm (part)’) in the joint name of Francis, Ian and Bevan, from David Francis Tait. 21 November 2007 Transfer of Sections 617-619 (CT 5720/23) and Sections 620-624 (CT 5817/790) (‘Tait’s Farm (part)’) from Francis, Ian, and Bevan as joint tenants to tenants in common with equal interest (1/3). 25 July 2012 Purchase of Ian’s 1/3 interest in Sections 617-619 (CT 5720/23) and Sections 620-624 (CT 5817/790) (‘Tait’s Farm (part)’) by Bevan Bull. 22 September 2017 Transfer of interest from Francis to Bevan Bull, pursuant to the will of Francis and Supreme Court order, in: Section 898W (CT 5604/898), Section 900 (CT 5835/991), Section 904 (CT 5832/963), Sections 617-619 (CT 5720/23), and Sections 620-624 (CT 5817/790) (‘Pedler’s Farm’) as well as in Section 903 (CT 5604/899) and Section 910 (CT 5730/26) (‘Gordon’s Farm’).	Pedler’s Farm Gordon’s Farm Tait’s Farm (part)	$7,428,260 (Arable Dryland)	530.59 ha
				$200,000 (Grazing with Saline Land)	40.00 ha
				$12,300 (Native Vegetation/ Support Land)	8.20 ha
				Total: $7,640,560	Total: 578.79 ha
Bevan 2/3 interest, Ian 1/3 interest	Lot 584 Tickera Road, Wallaroo (Section 548, CT 5820/473; Section 553, CT 5628/823; Section 554, CT 5720/22; Section 555, CT 5739/46; Section 563, CT 5737/252; Section 564, CT 5815/739 Section 565, CT 5799/156) Lot 573 Bulls Road, Kadina (Section 573, CT 5838/768) Lot 905 Heath Road, Kadina (Section 905, CT 5832/964)	3 June 1966 Purchase of land (‘Tait’s Farm (part)’) excluding Section 555 (CT 5739/46) and Section 563 (CT 5737/252) from David Francis Tait by Francis, Ian, and Bevan Bull as joint tenants. 8 August 1967 Transfer of Section 555 (CT 5739/46) and Section 563 (CT 5737/252) (‘John Bull’s Farm’) from John Desmond Bull to Francis, Ian, and Bevan. 21 November 2007 Transfer of the land from Francis, Ian, and Bevan Bull as joint tenants to tenants in common with equal interest (1/3). 28 September 2017 Transfer of Francis’ 1/3 interest to Bevan Bull, pursuant to the will of Francis and Supreme Court order.	Tait’s Farm (part) John Bull’s Farm	$700,800 (Lot 584 Tickera Road, Wallaroo) (Arable Dryland)	4.86 ha (CT 5820/473)
					7.28 ha (CT 5628/823)
					4.86 ha (CT 5720/22)
					5.46 ha (CT 5739/46)
					8.09 ha (CT 5737/252)
					8.09 ha (CT 5815/739)
					8.08 ha (CT 5799/156)
				$115,350 (Lot 573 Bulls Road, Kadina) (Arable Dryland)	7.69 ha (CT 5838/768)
				$570,000 (Lot 905 Heath Road, Kadina) (Arable Dryland)	38.00 ha (CT 5832/964)
				Total: $1,386,150	Total: 92.41 ha
Bevan 1/2 interest, Ian 1/2 interest	Lot 573 Bulls Road, Kadina (Section 917, CT 5940/598)	18 October 1963 Purchase of land in the names of Ian and Bevan Bull as tenants in common.	Pedler’s Farm (part)	$248,820 (Arable Dryland)	41.47 ha
				$12,000 (Native Vegetation/ Support Land)	16.00 ha
				Total: $260,820	Total: 57.47 ha
Bevan 3/6 interest, Valerie 1/6 interest, Ian 1/6 interest, Helen 1/6 interest	Lot 552 Drain Road, Kadina (Section 552, CT 5841/767)	16 March 1982 Purchase of land in names of Francis, Ruth, Ian, Helen, Bevan, and Valerie as tenants in common with1/6 interest each. 27 September 2017 Transfer of Francis’ 1/6 interest to Bevan’s existing 1/6 interest pursuant to the will of Francis and Supreme Court order. 28 September 2017 Transfer of Ruth’s 1/6 interest to Bevan’s 2/6 interest pursuant to the will of Ruth and Supreme Court order.	Heaven’s Farm	$81,900 (Arable Dryland)	5.46 ha
Bevan 2/6 interest, Ian 2/6 interest, Teresa Ann Lykke 1/6 interest, Laurence David Bull 1/6 interest	Lot 441 George Street, New Town (Sections 441 & 464, CT 5720/25; Section 443, CT 5720/24; Sections 462 & 463, CT 5802/216; Section 465, CT 5584/720; Allotment 896 FP 198267, CT 5829/88; Allotment 897 FP 198268, CT 5804/848; Allotment 898 FP 198269, CT 5828/959; Allotment 899 FP 198270, CT 5832/719) Lot 496 Harris Road, Kadina (Section 496, CT 5585/593)	3 June 1966 Purchase of the land from David Francis Tait by Francis, Ian, and Bevan as joint tenants. 21 November 2007 Transfer of land from Francis, Ian, and Bevan as joint tenants to tenants in common with equal interest (1/3). 11 October 2017 Transfer of Francis’ 1/3 interest to Teresa Ann Lykke and Laurence David Bull to be split equally in the land (1/6), pursuant to the will of Francis and Supreme Court order.	George Street New Town (Section 496 Harris Road (near New Town)) Tait’s Farm (part)	$906,800 (Deferred Urban Zoned - Arable Land)	6.47 ha (CT 5720/25)
					3.24 ha (CT 5720/24)
					6.47 ha (CT 5802/216)
					3.24 ha (CT 5584/720)
					0.61 ha (CT 5829/88)
					0.21 ha (CT 5804/848)
					0.81 ha (CT 5828/959)
					1.62 ha (CT 5832/719)
					Sub-Total: 22.57 ha
				$72,900 (Lot 496 Arable Dryland)	4.86 ha (CT 5585/593)
				Total: $979,700	Total: 27.53 ha
Total Value of Bevan Bull’s Holdings:				$11,835,620	920.98 ha