What happens when someone makes a big promise—say, “One day this farm will be yours”—and then dies without ever putting that promise in writing? What if the deceased’s later will says something totally different? In Kramer v Stone [2024] HCA 48, the High Court confirmed that in Australia, if you rely on a promise and it costs you—really costs you—the courts might step in and say, “That promise counts.” Yes, even if the will says otherwise. Kramer v Stone [2024] HCA 48 means a court might restrain the executors of the deceased’s estate from dealing with estate property according to the deceased’s will if it would break a promise that someone depended on. The legal tool behind this? Equitable estoppel.
Sounds dramatic? It is. This case could be a Netflix mini-series—farm life, family tension, a quiet man labouring in hope, a will that says “nope”, and a courtroom showdown. But at its heart is a deeply human question: how far does the law go to protect someone who takes a life-altering leap of faith based on another person’s word?
Equitable Estoppel: What Is It and Why Should You Care?
At its core, equitable estoppel says: if you make a promise, and someone seriously relies on it – involving significant personal steps with lasting and irreversible effects – you (or the executors of your estate) might not be allowed to back out—especially if it would be unfair not to keep your word.
Justice Brennan, in the leading case Waltons Stores v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, laid out the roadmap of what is required for equitable estoppel:
- There must be a clear promise.
- The person making it must have intended, or a reasonable person in their position would have expected, the other person to rely on it.
- The other person must have actually relied on the promise—meaning they wouldn’t have acted as they did without it.
- That reliance must lead to detriment—being worse off than if the promise had never been made.
And if these criteria are satisfied? Then the court can make orders for equitable relief. Sometimes that means compensation. But sometimes it means going all in—forcing the handover of land or rights that were promised, even if the land had been allocated to someone else under the deceased’s Will.
Meet David Stone: The Man Who Bet His Life on a Promise in Kramer v Stone [2024] HCA 48
David Stone wasn’t just any farmer. He’d been working a 100-acre property on the Colo River since the mid-1970s. The arrangement was informal—he lived on the land, managed the crops, and earned a modest return. In the early 1980s, Dr Harry and Dame Leonie (who owned the farm) told David he’d one day inherit the land.
Dr Harry passed away in 1988. After his death, Dame Leonie reaffirmed the promise. David stayed. For 23 years. He didn’t buy a house. Didn’t pursue other employment. He lived in substandard conditions (we’re talking mosquito-infested water, no insulation, and mouse droppings for décor). He turned down better financial opportunities, all because he believed the farm would be his.
But when Dame Leonie died in 2016, her latest will made in 2011 left the farm to her daughter, Hilary Kramer. David got $200,000. The farm? Valued at $1.5 million.
Appeal Drama: What Did the Executors Argue?
After losing at the Court of Appeal, Hilary and co-executor Jaime Ferrar weren’t having it. They appealed. Their argument? For David to win, he needed more than a promise. He needed encouragement after the promise. Also, Dame Leonie needed to have known, for certain, that David was relying on the promise.
The High Court said no.
The Court said these extra requirements were mixing up different legal ideas. One was from the area of “imperfect gifts”—think, gifts that never quite made it over the line legally. The other came from “estoppel by acquiescence”—where someone lets another act on a mistaken belief, knowing they’re making a mistake, and says nothing.
But this wasn’t either of those.
In this case, it was a straight promise. In Kramer v Stone [2024] HCA 48, the Court found that a clear promise, reasonable reliance, and real detriment were enough. No need for a second round of encouragement. No need to prove Dame Leonie was watching David suffer.
Was Kramer v Stone [2024] HCA 48 a Fair Call?
One judge, Justice Gleeson, disagreed. He thought more was needed—actual knowledge, or some conduct after the promise to encourage David. The rest of the bench said otherwise. They held that Dame Leonie’s conduct made it unconscionable to break the promise, and that was enough.
Where Does Kramer v Stone [2024] HCA 48 Leave Us?
Let’s pause. Should verbal promises, made decades earlier, really override a formal will? Or does the law have a duty to step in when someone lives a whole life built on that belief? As it stands, the High Court is choosing to uphold fairness over formality.
This case doesn’t just raise legal questions. It raises life questions. Questions about family. Issues of trust. Reflections on the cost of waiting. Thoughts on what happens when promises aren’t written down.
It leaves us with a warning: promises matter. If someone makes a life decision based on your words, courts can treat it seriously. Estate planning isn’t just paper—it’s what people are led to expect. If those expectations are strong enough, courts might back them, even when the will doesn’t.
Jake McKinley notes that this article is written for the purpose of providing generalised information and not to provide specialised legal advice. If you require qualified legal advice on anything mentioned in this article, our experienced team of solicitors at Jake McKinley are here to help. Please get in touch with us on 02 9232 8033 today to make an enquiry.
