Paddock Promises and Probate Problems: The Future of Farm Succession Planning

This article was first published in The Brief on 10 August 2026

Consider the following scenario: a farmer spends 40 years building up a property, only for their succession plan to consist of a vague promise and a Will that has not been reviewed since the 90’s! Upon the reading of that Will, siblings who have had limited contact find themselves locked in litigation over who is entitled to the homestead, who receives the outlying land, and whether a handshake deal made decades earlier gives rise to any enforceable rights. This is the reality of family farm succession in 2026: escalating land values, shifting family dynamics, and longstanding assumptions are converged in the courtroom.

As of May 2026, Bendigo Bank reported that Australian farmland is now reaching a record median price of $10,516 per hectare following 12 consecutive years of growth.[1] The stakes have never been higher.

The family farm is often far more than simply a paddock or homestead: it represents the family residence, the family business, the parents’ retirement capital, and a significant component of the family’s identity. That combination of competing interests makes equitable distribution exceptionally difficult to achieve.

What Claims Are We Actually Dealing With?

Farm disputes are rarely just about the Will. They tend to throw up a grab-bag of overlapping claims: family provision applications (where an eligible person argues the Will did not make adequate provision for them), proprietary estoppel (where someone claims they relied on a promise to receive property and should be compensated), challenges to lifetime transfers, allegations of undue influence or lack of capacity, and fights over who controls the family trust or company.

In NSW, the notional estate provisions in Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) add another layer, allowing courts to claw back assets that were transferred out of the estate before death. On the estoppel front, the classic fact pattern is a child, relative, or long-term farm worker who says they were told “one day this will all be yours” and acted on that promise for years or even decades.

One of the first things to check is: who actually owns what? It sounds obvious, but it trips people up all the time. The “family farm” might not be owned by Mum and Dad personally. It could be held in a discretionary trust, a company, or a partnership. If the land sits in a trust, it usually will not pass under the Will at all; what matters instead is who controls the trust (the appointor and trustee) and who holds the shares in any corporate trustee. Get that wrong, and the Will might distribute an empty shell while the real assets end up somewhere else entirely.

The Big Case: Kramer v Stone and the Power of a Promise

‍

The headline recent development is not a new statute. It is the High Court’s 2024 decision in KRAMER and Another v STONE (2024) 281 CLR 484 (Kramer), which has sharpened the risk of informal promises coming back to bite. The facts were a classic farming family tale: David Stone was promised he would inherit the farm, and on that basis, he kept share-farming for about 23 years on an “irregular and meagre” income. When that promise was not honoured, he brought a proprietary estoppel claim - essentially arguing that it would be unconscionable for the estate to go back on the promise after he had relied on it for so long. The High Court agreed, dismissing the appeal against orders in his favour.

The key takeaway? A single, clear promise can be enough to support an estoppel claim if the person reasonably relied on it and suffered detriment as a result. There is no need for the promise to be repeated over and over, and the promisor does not need to have known that the person was actually relying on it. That is a big deal for farming families, where succession expectations are often communicated casually (“don’t worry, you’ll get the farm”) and then acted upon for decades without any paperwork. Kramer confirms that a later Will cannot simply override those expectations where equity steps in to prevent unconscionable conduct.

The Counterpoint: Bushell v George

Not every promise will succeed, though — and Bushell v George [2025] NSWSC 1347 shows why. This case involved a sprawling 3,000-hectare NSW family farm and claims by adult children that their father had promised them each an equal share.

The estoppel claims failed. Why? Because the alleged promises were too vague to be enforceable, and the children could not show a clear enough link between the promises and the life choices they said they had made in reliance on them. However, the Court did award one child $300,000 in further provision from the notional estate, serving as a reminder that even when estoppel fails, family provision can step in to deliver a remedy. The Court was clearly live to the importance of keeping the farm intact as a going concern.

For litigators, the lesson is clear: woolly “equal shares” talk will not cut it. You need a clear assurance, reasonable reliance, detriment, and a solid causal connection between the promise and the claimant’s position.

For estate planners, the case is a reminder that if the plan is to keep the farm in one piece for the farming child, that decision needs to be documented, explained, and supported by proper valuations.

Practical Steps: How to Avoid Family Feud in the Courtroom

The good news is that most of this is avoidable with proper planning. Here is the checklist.

1. Map the ownership structure before drafting anything. That means title searches, trust deeds, appointor and trustee provisions, company constitutions, partnership agreements, loan accounts, water entitlements, leases, plant and equipment, and superannuation death benefit nominations. This should all reviewed together, not in isolation.
2. Document the deal with the farming successor. Are they getting assets by gift, sale, staged buy-in, lease, employment, partnership, unit holding, or succession to trust control? Write it down clearly.
3. Record the reasoning behind any differential treatment: who contributed what, who gave up wages, who got advances, who has the financial need, and why keeping the farm viable matters.
4. Get everyone talking on the record. Family meetings, written summaries of intentions, contemporaneous file notes, independent valuations, and clear records of contributions all help fill the evidentiary gap that estoppel and family provision claims love to exploit. They also give executors and trustees something to point to when defending succession decisions against disgruntled beneficiaries.

Farm succession disputes are not going away, but they are largely preventable. The key is integrated planning across wills, trusts, tax, family law, and business structures, done early and documented properly. Get it right, and the next generation inherits a legacy. Get it wrong, and the paddock promise becomes the pleading.

Article reference below.

[1] ‘Bendigo Bank Agribusiness: Australian farmland values hit new record, but growth cools to 12-year low’, Bendigo Bank (Web Page, 5 May 2026) <https://www.bendigobank.com.au/media/bendigo-bank-agribusiness-australian-farmland-values-hit-new-record-but-growth-cools-to-12-year-low/>