Skip to content
Gigantum.net
World

Her father died in a plane crash in 2007; 19 years later, daughter is suing her mother over a $15 million farm

Sapphire Britt Halliday's father, mining executive Garnet Halliday, died in a plane crash in Malawi in 2007, aged 50.

· 1,014 words

Sapphire Britt Halliday's father, mining executive Garnet Halliday, died in a plane crash in Malawi in 2007, aged 50. Nearly two decades later, Sapphire is suing her mother, Deborah Lakshmi Halliday, in the Supreme Court of Victoria over the family's farm in Macedon, Victoria, which is now worth an estimated $14 million to $15 million. Sapphire claims her mother promised her an interest in the property and the family's Waterford Charolais cattle business if she did not challenge her father's will. Deborah denies making the promise and argues that some parts of the alleged arrangement would be legally non-binding regardless. An interim court ruling has allowed the farm's sale to proceed while requiring $2.5 million to be secured for Sapphire's claim and debts against the property.Garnet Halliday died in a 2007 plane crashGarnet Halliday was a senior executive at Western Australian mining company Paladin when he died in a plane crash in Malawi in March 2007. He was 50. Halliday left behind an estate worth more than $30 million, according to ABC's reporting on the current court case. Its major assets included the Macedon farm and the Waterford Charolais cattle business, which were valued at about $3 million at the time of his death. The estate also included approximately $26 million in Paladin shares and a $1.6 million life insurance policy. Together, those reported assets amounted to about $30.6 million.That figure refers to the value of Halliday's overall estate in 2007, not the present-day value of the farm. The farm is now separately estimated to be worth between $14 million and $15 million. Halliday's will left $50,000 to Kaden, his son from a previous marriage, with the remainder of the estate going to his wife, Deborah. Kaden subsequently challenged the will and received a further payout. Sapphire was 18 at the time.Sapphire says her mother promised her a share of the farmSapphire's case centres on what she says her mother promised after Halliday's death. According to her claim, Deborah told her that if she did not challenge her father's will, she would eventually receive an interest in the farm worth about $2 million. Sapphire says she understood that amount to be comparable to the payout her half-brother received after challenging the will. She also claims she was promised a 50 per cent share in the cattle business.The court also heard Sapphire's allegation that Deborah promised to leave her own share of the farm to her daughter in her will, provided the property was not sold and Sapphire continued helping to run the family business. Deborah denies making the alleged promise and argues that parts of the arrangement would not be legally binding even if such assurances had been given. Sapphire told the court that she relied on her mother's assurances by giving up her right to challenge the will and abandoning plans to study agriculture at university. She later worked on the farm for more than a decade, which she claims was for below-award wages. These remain allegations made in the proceedings and have not been finally determined.Text messages became part of Sapphire's caseText messages exchanged between the mother and daughter in May 2023 were tendered to the court. In one message, Deborah told Sapphire: "I hoped to pay you out like I paid [Mr Halliday's son]," but added that she could not afford to do so at the time. Sapphire's court documents also allege that Deborah told her on another occasion that "the farm is mine." Sapphire lodged a caveat over the farm on July 1, 2025, claiming an interest in the property on the basis of proprietary estoppel. In broad terms, her case argues that she relied on her mother's alleged assurances and that it would be unfair for Deborah to go back on them.Deborah told the court she did not know Sapphire was making a claim over the property until she received a solicitor's letter three days after the caveat was lodged. The dispute has unfolded as Deborah attempts to sell the farm. The court heard that she suffered a stroke in 2021, which made it more difficult to operate a business that had already been trading at a loss for several years. Since late 2023, she had borrowed close to $1 million against the property from several parties, including a private couple, a litigation funder covering her legal costs and another lender providing cash flow assistance. Her total debt was put at about $2.5 million, while two lenders had also lodged caveats over the property.Court allows the farm sale while protecting the claimThe immediate issue before Associate Justice Barrett was whether Sapphire's caveat should remain over the property while her underlying claim continued. The ruling did not determine whether Deborah had actually made the promises Sapphire alleges or whether Sapphire is ultimately entitled to the farm or its proceeds. Barrett found that Sapphire had established a prima facie case for proprietary estoppel. However, the judge found that a claim to two-thirds of the farm's value was stronger than her claim to the whole property without any debt. The judge also considered the wording of the text messages relied upon by Sapphire. The messages referred to a payment of between $1.5 million and $2 million, or to a percentage of the farm's sale price, rather than clearly establishing a claim to the entire property.The court then weighed the potential impact on Deborah's creditors against the risk to Sapphire if the property were sold without protecting her claim. Barrett allowed the sale to proceed but ordered that Sapphire's caveat be removed on the condition that $2.5 million be paid into court or an agreed trust account. The money is intended to protect Sapphire's claim as well as debts secured against the property since she lodged her caveat, while the underlying dispute continues. The ruling is therefore not a final decision on the inheritance dispute. No trial date had been set when ABC reported the case on September 23, 2026, and the matter is scheduled for mediation in March 2027.You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.

Gathered from external sources. Rights to this text belong to whoever originally published it.

Monday, October 5, 2026

© 2026 Gigantum.net. Content gathered automatically from external sources; rights to each text belong to whoever originally published it.