I’m not sure if this article is intended to take aim at Mr Hansen, but it certainly comes across that way. From what’s presented here, poor succession planning seems to be more at the heart of the issue than the neighbouring farmer who legally purchased a share of the property.

The article doesn’t suggest Mr Hansen has actually attempted to force a sale, or even threatened to do so. In fact, it says Ms Hume has never met him. It also seems somewhat misleading to suggest that a 30% owner can simply force the farm to be sold — he can apply to the Supreme Court for a partition or sale, but that does not mean a sale automatically follows, and the Act also provides mechanisms for another co-owner to purchase the share.

There may well be more to the story, but based on the information provided, it seems premature to portray Mr Hansen as the problem when this appears primarily to be an unfortunate consequence of how the farm’s succession and ownership were structured. I’d be thanking him for what seems as though Ms Hume is living rent free in a house owned by him.