Stone v Kramer (No 2)

The appeal involved a dispute between the parties concerning the ownership and management of a farming property. The plaintiff sought relief in the form of a water licence, equipment, and orders for the defendants to vacate the property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the defendants had made representations regarding the water licence and equipment, which they were estopped from denying. The plaintiff also sought orders for the defendants to pay costs associated with the transfer of the property and for the defendants to be granted a licence to occupy a cottage on the property.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was entitled to the orders sought, including the reopening of his case to prove his entitlement to the water licence and equipment. The court also considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for the defendants to pay costs ancillary to the transfer of the real property, and whether the defendants were entitled to orders granting them a licence to occupy the cottage. Additionally, the court examined the issue of costs, specifically whether the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs and whether the defendants were entitled to a costs order in their favour.

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the orders sought, including the reopening of his case. The court found that the plaintiff had not made out a case for estoppel by representation, and that the evidence did not support the plaintiff's claim for the water licence and equipment. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an order for the defendants to pay costs ancillary to the transfer of the property. Regarding the costs, the court found that the rejection of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable, and that there was no basis for an indemnity costs order in the plaintiff's favour.

The court made orders dismissing the plaintiff's appeal and ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the appeal. The court also made orders dismissing the defendants' cross-appeal and ordering the defendants to pay their own costs of the cross-appeal.