Descendants
of Norman Thomas are at arm’s length in a family stoush over entitlement to his
$20 million dollar Canterbury farming estate with son pitted against his
sister’s children.
The High Court was asked to intervene when son
Philip gave notice to his nephews requiring them to vacate farms they are
occupying. This after an earlier family
arrangement fell apart. As a temporary
measure, the High Court ordered the nephews start paying a market rental for
farms they are occupying and further ordered that Norman’s son Philip is not to
go on to the disputed land pending resolution of estate litigation as to who is
entitled to what.
Prior to his death, Norman Thomas had been
farming in partnership for 35 years with his son Philip. The two fell out in Norman’s final years and
in April 2012 Norman started court action to declare their partnership at
end. This was not resolved before his
death.
At the time of Norman’s death, two of his
grandsons (children of Philip’s sister) were farming various partnership
properties. Since 2010, grandson Mark
Reed has been in possession of two farms known as Yaldhurst and Halkett and
grandson Simon Reed has been in occupation of two others, Chesmars and Cridges.
Philip claims ownership of these farms
as partnership assets from the partnership that existed with his father. Family members, including other
grandchildren, have made claims against Norman’s estate under the Family
Protection Act.
A High Court hearing to resolve all these
issues was put on hold in May 2014 following an agreement in principle between
all family members on ways to settle their dispute. Nothing came of this.
The High Court was told matters reached a head
when Philip gave notice requiring his nephews to vacate their farms by early
March 2015. Evidence was given that the
two grandsons have not paid for the last five years any rent or outgoings on
the properties they are occupying. Grandson
Simon claims he has a valid claim against Norman’s estate for at least a half
share of the property he is occupying. Grandson
Mark claims Norman promised him a ten year lease over the property he is
occupying. Justice Dunningham said this
was a case of the two in occupation arguing that Philip had no right to
possession of the land, despite Philip being a co-owner of the land and a
co-owner who had never agreed to the rights of possession claimed by the
grandsons. A hearing date to resolve
these claims is set down for 2016, she said.
Justice Dunningham ruled the two grandsons were
to pay rent in the interim, with half payable to Norman’s estate and the other
half to Philip as co-owner of the properties.
Annual rent payable from March 2015 was fixed
at $49,000 for Simon and $46,000 for Mark, with the two to pay future outgoings
on the properties they occupy including rates and insurance. They are entitled to a refund of rentals paid
should the 2016 court hearing determine they have a valid ownership claim over
the disputed farms, Her Honour said.
Estate:
MacKintosh & Hall v. Thomas – High Court (23.4.15)
15.036