(1) Ross and later Tim had constantly worked for less than appropriate wages, with less than appropriate holidays, and without provision for long service leave. In return for that under-remuneration they had provided long hours of high-level skills, increasing business profits and (in bad times) minimising losses. The detriment they suffered had not been simply monetary. It had involved depreciation in the quality of life that they had enjoyed.
Frances could not successfully argue that the monetary component of this detriment would be expunged by resolution of contractual claims made by Ross and Tim. Only a portion of the monetary detriment could be recovered by such claims - in respect of unused annual leave and (at least in Ross's case) long service leave entitlement. That would leave outstanding claims for equitable damages - including, in Ross's case, a wages shortfall between 1986 and 2000 of about $286,000;[84] and in Tim's case a wages shortfall, as set out in the statement of claim, of about $187,500.
(2) Ross had incurred expenditure by way of personal expenses ($26,093) and motor vehicle expenses ($95,332) in pursing partnership activities. These were not contractually recoverable.
(3) Ross had suffered lost opportunity by reason of his being under-remunerated over the years. He had been deprived the opportunity of having funds for investment purposes. The value of the lost opportunity, depending upon taxation considerations, was between $280,000 - $553,000. This addressed the period 1986 - 2000.
(4) Ross had provided his own equipment for use in the partnership business, to its advantage and his detriment. The equipment had lost value, estimated at $5,000.
(5) Tim had provided his tractor for use in the partnership business. He had not been remunerated at all for doing so. He estimated the value of work done, for which there had been no remuneration, at $16,000.
(6) Ross had invented or improved upon farm equipment - a cattle crush, stockyards and a self-feeding silage bunker. These inventions or improvements had been dedicated to the good of the partnership business. Ross, immersed in working for the partnership, had lost the opportunity of developing them to his own commercial advantage.
(7) Consistently with representations made in 1986 and thereafter, Frances had in substance closed the door in and from 1986 on any attempt by Ross, and later on any attempt by Ross and Tim, to buy out her interest in the land and business. The same situation obtained after the death of Mrs Cashin in 1996. The door remained closed until, at earliest, August 1999; and really until the partnership was dissolved as at 3 June 2000. The closing of the door, having regard to the expectation created by Frances' representations, was entirely acceptable to the plaintiffs and Marjorie. Frances' interest in the land and business as at 1988, when Mr Cashin's estate was finally settled, was smaller than it became after her mother died in 1996. For Mrs Cashin held a 50% interest in each of Dunlops and Days; and an interest in both stock and plant and equipment. Ross had anticipated a need to purchase the interest that Frances would inherit from her father in the land and business; and had been prepared to make that purchase in order that the land and business should one day, so far as possible, pass down to Tim. The effect of reliance upon the expectation created by Frances' representations was that Ross, and later Tim, were deprived of the opportunity of staging the purchase of Frances' interest - that is, by first purchasing the interest which she had after Mr Cashin's death; and later by purchasing the interest which her mother left her. The acquisition of Frances' interest as at June 2000 was more difficult, and more costly.
(8) Ross and Tim had foregone opportunities to carry on different and more personally beneficial farming operations. Ross could have conducted a different beef cattle operation, or gone back to dairy-farming at Dumbalk. Tim had been interested in dairy farming at Dumbalk. His father had talked him out of it, in reliance on representations by Frances and Marjorie that one day the land and business would all be his.