Walsh v KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd - [2023] NSWDC 38

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Walsh v KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 38
Hearing dates: 28 February 2022, 2-4, 7-9 March 2022, 11 May 2022, 15-18 August 2022.
Date of orders: 3 March 2023
Decision date: 03 March 2023
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
I find that the Defendant is entitled to the proceeds of the Dalree rice crop harvested in April 2017. I shall hear Counsel as to appropriate orders concerning the disposition of these proceedings.

Catchwords:
CONTRACT – REAL PROPERTY LAW – FIXTURES – FRUCTUS NATURALES – FRUCTUS INDUSTRIALES – Rice crop planted by farmer before exchange of contracts for sale of farm – Whether oral contract concerning rice crop – At time of exchange of contracts and completion of sale of farm rice crop growing on the farmland – Rice crop not excluded from fixtures incorporated in sale – Documents provides to purchaser to enable him to take the proceeds of the rice crop - Purchaser entitled to rice crop – Whether system for sale of seed between farmer and SunRice severed rice crop from the land.

Legislation Cited:
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Personal Properties Security Act 2009 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Pasley v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1958] NZLR 332
Sapfor Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (SA) (1997) 97 ATC 4535; (1997) 36 ATR 272; BC9702829
Saunders (Inspector of Taxes) v Pilcher [1949] 2 All ER 1097 (CA)

Texts Cited:
Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 5th edit. Vol. 2

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff – Alan David Walsh
Defendant – KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd
Representation: Counsel:
Plaintiff – Mr Gunning, M.
Defendant – Mr O’Connor, J.
Solicitors:
Plaintiff – Rural Law
Defendant – Walsh & Blair Solicitors

File Number(s): 2020/00107856
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

Introduction
The Plaintiff’s background
Defendant’s background
“Dalree”
Early interaction of the parties
The Dalree Rice Crop
The contract for the Sale of Dalree
Legal principles
The Plaintiff’s argument
Consideration
The pleadings
Plaint: [3]
Plea: [3]
Reply: [1]

Plaint: [4]
Plea: [4]

Plaint: [5]
Plea: [5]
Reply: [2]

Plaint: [6]
Plea: [6]

Plaint: [7]
Plea: [7]

Plaint: [8]
Plea: [8]

Plaint: [9]
Plea: [9]

Plaint: [10]
Plea: [10]-[10L]
Promissory estoppel
Proprietary Estoppel
Estoppel by convention
Reply: [3]

Plaint: [11]
Plea: [11]
Reply: [3]

Plaint: [23]
Plea: [23]
Reply: [4]

Other matters
(A) The Plaintiff’s health
(B) Unacceptable claims
(C) The water issue

Other aspects of the Plaintiff’s evidence
The attitude of the Brains to the PJV
Finding and disposition

Judgment

Introduction

HIS HONOUR: These proceedings arise out of the sale by the Plaintiff to the Defendant of a rural property known as “Dalree”, near Coleambally, in 2017. The volume of the evidence presented to the Court is great and the time taken to present the evidence and to make submissions has been lengthy. However, the parties have agreed on a mechanism which might yet shorten the proceedings.
The proceedings were commenced by a Statement of Claim filed on 9 April 2020 in Sydney. A Defence was…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Walsh v KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NSWDC 38
Decision Date: 03 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Walsh v KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Mr. Walsh, sought to recover the proceeds of a rice crop harvested from his farm, Dalree, after the farm had been sold to the defendant, KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether the rice crop, which was growing at the time of the sale, constituted a fixture and therefore formed part of the sale, or whether it was a fructus industriales or fructus naturales that remained the property of the original owner. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was the classification of the rice crop at the time of the sale. Specifically, the court needed to determine if an oral contract existed between the parties regarding the rice crop and whether this contract was binding. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the rice crop was severed from the land by the system for the sale of seed between the farmer and SunRice. These issues were pivotal in determining the rightful owner of the harvested rice crop.

The court found that, at the time of the exchange of contracts and the completion of the sale, the rice crop was growing on the farmland and was not excluded from the fixtures incorporated in the sale. Furthermore, documents provided to the purchaser enabled him to take the proceeds of the rice crop. Consequently, the court concluded that the purchaser was entitled to the rice crop. The court also determined that the system for the sale of seed between the farmer and SunRice did not sever the rice crop from the land. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to the proceeds of the Dalree rice crop harvested in April 2017.

Pending further instructions from counsel regarding the appropriate orders concerning the disposition of these proceedings, the court made an interim finding that the defendant is entitled to the proceeds of the Dalree rice crop harvested in April 2017.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find that the Defendant is entitled to the proceeds of the Dalree rice crop harvested in April 2017. I shall hear Counsel as to appropriate orders concerning the disposition of these proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Walsh v KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 38
Hearing dates:	28 February 2022, 2-4, 7-9 March 2022, 11 May 2022, 15-18 August 2022.
Date of orders:	3 March 2023
Decision date:	03 March 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	I find that the Defendant is entitled to the proceeds of the Dalree rice crop harvested in April 2017. I shall hear Counsel as to appropriate orders concerning the disposition of these proceedings.
Catchwords:	CONTRACT – REAL PROPERTY LAW – FIXTURES – FRUCTUS NATURALES – FRUCTUS INDUSTRIALES – Rice crop planted by farmer before exchange of contracts for sale of farm – Whether oral contract concerning rice crop – At time of exchange of contracts and completion of sale of farm rice crop growing on the farmland – Rice crop not excluded from fixtures incorporated in sale – Documents provides to purchaser to enable him to take the proceeds of the rice crop - Purchaser entitled to rice crop – Whether system for sale of seed between farmer and SunRice severed rice crop from the land.
Legislation Cited:	Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) Personal Properties Security Act 2009 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Pasley v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1958] NZLR 332 Sapfor Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (SA) (1997) 97 ATC 4535; (1997) 36 ATR 272; BC9702829 Saunders (Inspector of Taxes) v Pilcher [1949] 2 All ER 1097 (CA)
Texts Cited:	Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 5th edit. Vol. 2
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Plaintiff – Alan David Walsh Defendant – KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff – Mr Gunning, M. Defendant – Mr O’Connor, J. Solicitors: Plaintiff – Rural Law Defendant – Walsh & Blair Solicitors
File Number(s):	2020/00107856
Publication restriction:	Nil.