A farmer’s son who spent decades working long hours on his family’s sprawling NSW property has won a bitter court battle after a judge found his parents led him to believe he would one day inherit it.
But the victory comes with a catch: he must now financially support his ageing parents for the rest of their lives.
The NSW Supreme Court heard Geoffrey Richard toiled for decades alongside his now elderly parents, John, 87, and Carol Richard, on their 1,440-acre property, Cooinda, near Coolah in the state’s north-west.
What began as a modest sheep and cattle operation in 1974 grew into a major agribusiness worth millions of dollars, expanding into lucerne, oats and wheat alongside a 3,000-head feedlot that became fully accredited by 2015.
In quieter moments, the court heard Geoffrey was told by his father: ‘You will take over all of this when I die… carry on the Richard legacy.’
Relying on those assurances, Geoffrey returned to the farm after completing an agricultural diploma in 1996 and devoted his entire working life to the property, often working seven days a week for little or no pay.
The court heard Geoffrey had little financial independence, with his parents covering many of his living expenses and controlling access to money.
He relied on the farm account for groceries, while utilities and expenses were paid on his behalf, and even his credit card statements were sent directly to his father.
John and Carol Richard purchased Cooinda in 1974 and spent decades growing the property into a thriving agricultural business
Their son Geoffrey Richard returned home after agricultural college and spent decades working on the farm after being told he would one day take over
Family advisers later estimated Geoffrey had effectively accumulated about $400,000 worth of unpaid work by 2008 alone.
But behind the successful family business lay a simmering dispute over exactly when Geoffrey would inherit the farm he had devoted his life to.
John and Carol had begun succession planning as early as 2008, recognising they needed a plan for the future as Geoffrey continued working on the property without wages.
Geoffrey was later brought into a new three-way partnership known as JR Feedlot, while the family updated their wills as part of a succession plan aimed at gradually transitioning the business as Geoffrey prepared to marry his wife Melissa, known as Missy.
During a 2009 meeting with adviser Peter Portelli, John told Geoffrey: ‘We want to bring you into the business. We want to step back and want you to take over. You and Missy are getting married, so we want to give you some certainty about the future. We also want to acknowledge all the work you have done.’
Geoffrey understood the arrangements meant he would eventually receive Cooinda, while John expected the farm would continue supporting him and Carol into old age.
What was intended to create a smooth succession instead slowly created tension within the family.
Justice Slattery said: ‘What started as an idea to integrate Geoffrey into partnership with his parents to promote smooth succession unexpectedly seeded the opposite result – family tension and conflict.’
Geoffrey and his father John increasingly clashed over farming decisions and exactly when control of the property would change hands.
The simmering dispute finally exploded after a bitter disagreement over partnership money and the future of the farm
As Geoffrey took on greater responsibility for day-to-day operations, father and son increasingly clashed over farming decisions and control of the property.
‘They each had their own views about what excellence in farming meant, John’s informed by decades of experience and Geoffrey’s by the modern methods he learned at EAC but with shorter practical experience,’ Justice Slattery said.
During disputes, Geoffrey claimed his father would weaponise the farm’s future, telling him: ‘Well, I won’t give you the farm then.’
His parents denied making any binding promise, insisting any transfer was always conditional, including on Geoffrey properly providing for them in retirement.
The relationship between father and son finally imploded in 2020 after John withdrew $127,000 from partnership funds to buy a Cairns apartment, a move Geoffrey claimed was unauthorised.
The fallout was immediate.
Geoffrey and his parents stopped speaking altogether, a bitter estrangement that lasted through the court case, with the judge noting they did not even acknowledge one another in the courtroom.
As relations collapsed, John and Carol turned to daughters Jenna and Phoebe, abandoning any expectation Geoffrey would support them in retirement.
Relations deteriorated so badly Geoffrey and his parents stopped speaking altogether during the court battle. Pictured: John Richard
Relations deteriorated so badly Geoffrey and his parents stopped speaking altogether during the court battle
In a dramatic shift, they withdrew a further $175,000 from the partnership to help daughter Phoebe and her husband buy a property where the ageing couple planned to live.
Geoffrey later accused his parents of making a series of unauthorised transactions involving partnership funds, including the Cairns apartment purchase and cash transfers, claims strongly disputed during the court battle.
The couple’s daughter Jenna testified she had always understood it would be Geoffrey’s financial responsibility to support their parents in retirement.
‘I think it’s a blessing they have lived this long, but they didn’t plan for retirement,’ she said.
‘They didn’t plan to live off the farm. They expected, as dad often said, that he’d die with his boots on.
‘He didn’t want to ever get old and need to go to a nursing home, so he just didn’t anticipate ever having that situation.’
Jenna said she had always believed Geoffrey and the farm would provide for John and Carol into old age.
But Justice Slattery made clear the court’s orders did not amount to Geoffrey being responsible for funding every aspect of his parents’ lives, with support instead tied to income generated through the family farming business.
Innova Legal solicitor Fadi Chahine (pictured) said simple documented agreement would have avoided the financial and familial toll of a protracted court case
Justice Michael Slattery found Geoffrey had sacrificed other career opportunities to work the land.
However, the judge also made clear Geoffrey was not without fault.
He criticised Geoffrey’s conduct at times, describing some communications as ‘unnecessarily disrespectful’ and highlighting that he had cut his parents off from their three grandchildren.
‘He was prepared to deny John and Carol access to their grandchildren, his children, over this dispute.
‘This conduct, coupled with his and Missy’s correspondence and communications with other family members that were repeatedly bitter, does not give the Court comfort that Geoffrey is able to take an objective view of this family conflict.’
But Justice Slattery accepted Geoffrey’s frustrations, finding he had worked for decades with little financial reward and limited independence.
‘Geoffrey cannot afford to acquire Cooinda on the open market, given his relatively poor financial circumstances,’ the judge said.
‘He instead suffers the financial consequences of having provided decades of unpaid labour to his parents’ farming and feedlot enterprises.’
Meanwhile, John was found at times to have given an ‘improbable’ version of events that appeared to suit his own interests and could be ‘unapproachable and difficult’.
‘He harboured considerable resentment at being unable to see his grandchildren,’ the judge said.
Under the orders, Geoffrey is entitled to have Cooinda transferred to him, but only after certain tax losses are recouped.
In return, he must provide his parents with an income for life based on what they would likely have earned had they remained involved in the farming operation.
Innova Legal solicitor Fadi Chahine said these kinds of family disputes happen often where promises are made over many years but were never properly documented.
‘A simple documented agreement covering when the farm transfers, on what terms, and how the parents are provided for in retirement would have avoided all of this,’ he said.
‘Instead you’ve got a family that won’t speak to each other and legal costs chewing through the asset they’re all fighting over.’
‘Geoffrey gave up 25 years of proper wages and any real chance of building his own financial future because he trusted his parents’ word,’ he said.
‘The court said that trust was reasonable and his parents can’t now pretend those conversations never happened.’
