Skip to main content
 
Subscribe Free
The Daily Sydney

Local News, Sydney. Every Day.

Multiple Sources. Transparent Technology.

Courts

Wright v Kennedy; Wright v Dundooga Pastoral Co Pty Ltd; Reynoldson v Wright; Garlick v Kennedy; Glass v Kennedy; Brown v Kennedy; Wright v Kennedy [2026] NSWSC 834

Supreme Court of New South Wales - [2026] NSWSC 834

Share

By Daily Sydney Courts · Published 25 July 2026, 9:40 am · written 17 July 2026

1 min read

Updated Fri, 28 Aug· 28 August 2026, 8:10 am

AI-assisted · risk-based human review

AI-assisted journalism under human editorial accountability and risk-based review. AI may assist with research, summarising and drafting. Where public source links underpin the article, they are shown below. Sensitive material is held for human review; some lower-risk material may be published automatically after sourcing, accuracy and safety checks. The Daily Sydney covers Sydney news. It is provided for general information only and is not professional, legal, financial, or medical advice. Read about our editorial care →

Links to sources include (but not limited to): caselaw.nsw.gov.au

Wright v Kennedy; Wright v Dundooga Pastoral Co Pty Ltd; Reynoldson v Wright; Garlick v Kennedy; Glass v Kennedy; Brown v Kennedy; Wright v Kennedy [2026] NSWSC 834
Photo by europeanspaceagency / flickr (by-sa)

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has delivered judgment in Wright v Kennedy; Wright v Dundooga Pastoral Co Pty Ltd; Reynoldson v Wright; Garlick v Kennedy; Glass v Kennedy; Brown v Kennedy; Wright v Kennedy [2026] NSWSC 834.

Case details

Citation: [2026] NSWSC 834

Decision date: 2026-07-16

Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales

Catchwords

ESTOPPEL, Proprietary estoppel, Encouragement, Where plaintiff is a farmer, Where the farm is made up of three parcels of farmland, Where the first parcel of farmland (First Parcel) was owned by plaintiff’s mother (the deceased) prior to her death, Where plaintiff alleges that the deceased made representations that he would inherit all of the First Parcel if he stayed and worked on the farm

Read the judgment

This judgment is published on the official court website. Read the full judgment here.

This record links to the official court source only. The full judgment text is not republished here.

Sources:

Source material used in preparing this article is listed below so readers can check the original record.

You might also like

Editorial picks

Daily papers across Australia

Explore local coverage from Daily Network mastheads in your country.

How did this story land?

Spread the word

Share

Have your say

Loading comments…

About this articleBeta

Published by The Daily Sydney

Covering courts in Sydney. Written by AI from the linked sources and not reviewed by a journalist before publishing. Sources are linked where available. Spotted an error or need a correction? Contact corrections@dailynetwork.news. Our reasonable editorial care.

Beta: AI-assisted and human-overseen. Details may be imperfect, so please verify anything important.

Spread the word

Share

Daily brief

Enjoyed this? Wake up to Sydney news every morning.

Free, in your inbox before 7am. Weekdays.

By subscribing you agree to receive emails from The Daily Sydney and accept our Privacy Policy. Unsubscribe anytime.

The Daily Network — local news across Australia