Pirrottina v Pirrottina [2024] NSWSC 558

Coffee and a Case Note

“Our parents’ citrus farm is a partnership asset!”

___

Two siblings in partnership, P and D, ran a citrus farming business, having received it from their parents in the 2000s: [1]

(P, the parents’ exec, sought access to the parents’ privileged documents after death. As exec, P could waive privilege, however doing so was for themselves and not in the interests of the estate or benefs. Noting an exec’s duty to avoid conflict, access was denied: [4] - [10])

In the 1990s the parents gifted D the “Lot”, a part of the citrus farm: [29] - [31], [45], [50], [268]

In 1999, P bought a nearby farm with the parents providing both deposit and guarantee. P rented the house on the nearby farm out and continued to live with the parents at the citrus farm: [54], [60]

The orchards on the nearby farm were deployed in the parents’ business but there was no suggestion P’s nearby farm was a partnership asset: [55], [149]

In 2001, the parents gifted P and D the citrus farm and the business: [61], [62]

The farm was transferred before the commencement of P and D’s partnership and, being a gift, was not paid for with partnership funds: [142]

From around 2018 relations between D and P soured: [104] - [107]

As P’s nearby farm was not providing fruit for the partnership (and even though P continued to work for the partnership) payments to P were reduced: [121], [122]

Valuations were obtained as part of a potentially unwinding process. During this, P’s lawyer shared comments on a Deed (apparently made on P’s instructions) acknowledging P’s ownership of the Lot: [123]

P said that, in 2022, they attended D’s home to demand their share of partnership profits and were rebuffed. Police became involved and an AVO was obtained: [125], [126]

From around this time P was not paid by the partnership and did no further work for it: [129]

Shortly after this, P’s lawyer asserted the farm, including the Lot, was an asset of the partnership: [131]

The Court found the partnership ended on the date of the altercation, noting that from that time, P did no work and received no payment: [140]

P sought a declaration that the citrus farm, including the Lot, was a partnership asset: [141]

Although the evidence was imperfect, the Court was not convinced by P’s argument that the citrus farm was a partnership asset. This was based in part on its tax treatment via instructions given by P and D to an accountant over the years: [153]

P was found to have an equitable interest in the farm, namely in the Lot: [155] - [223]

The Court declined to make an s66G order and instead made a Woodson order, requiring P to offer their remaining interest in the farm to D at market value. If D was not willing or able to buy, a sale should proceed: [249]

___

Please give James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note and James' firm, Gravamen, a follow on your favourite platform!

www.gravamen.com.au