The fire started from rubbish heaps lit months earlier, smouldering until conditions were right.
In the dry summer heat of January 2021, a rubbish heap lit months earlier on a South Australian pastoral property smouldered into catastrophe, consuming 14,000 hectares and upending the lives of 132 property owners. The man who lit it, Tom Brinkworth — one of Australia's most storied landholders — had already died, leaving his estate to answer for the fire in his place. South Australia's Court of Appeal has now confirmed what the Supreme Court first found: that the blaze was not an act of nature, but the consequence of a heap improperly built and left to burn. The ruling is a reminder that stewardship of land carries obligations that outlast the lives of those who hold it.
- A rubbish heap lit in winter 2020 smouldered undetected for months before erupting into a 14,000-hectare inferno that destroyed three homes and killed thousands of sheep.
- The Brinkworth family's appeal rested on a lightning-strike theory — plausible in isolation, but rejected twice now by courts that found the evidence pointed firmly back to the rubbish pile.
- Three appellate justices found the family's legal team could not demonstrate any heat source other than the active, smouldering heap, leaving the original liability finding intact.
- Because Brinkworth died before the case concluded, his executors escape personal liability — but his estate must now pay substantial damages to insurers and over a hundred affected landowners.
- A class action funded entirely by property insurers has shielded victims from the cost of litigation, and with the appeal exhausted, attention turns to calculating what is owed to more than a hundred families and businesses.
Tom Brinkworth was a figure of outsized presence in Australian pastoral life — a man who once moved 18,000 cattle across state lines and rescued a giant crayfish statue from a struggling town. In July 2020, he lit a rubbish heap on his South Australian property. He died the following month, never knowing what that heap would become. When temperatures reached 38 degrees Celsius in January 2021, the smouldering pile ignited into a fire that burned for weeks, destroying three houses, killing thousands of sheep, and affecting 132 property owners across 14,000 hectares.
The cause of the fire became the central legal dispute. Brinkworth's family argued that a lightning strike had quietly combusted inside a tree for six weeks before sparking the broader blaze — a theory not impossible, but one that Supreme Court Justice Laura Stein found merely theoretical rather than probable. She concluded the fire had originated from the rubbish heaps, which had smouldered through the months between ignition and catastrophe. She also noted that had Brinkworth followed the Country Fire Service's Vegetation Pile Burning Code of Practice, the risk could have been substantially reduced.
Brinkworth's executors — his widow, two sons, and an accountant — appealed, arguing the original judgment had not properly weighed the evidence. The Court of Appeal, in a ruling handed down in mid-May, disagreed. President Mark Livesey and Justices Bleby and Doyle found the family had failed to point to any alternative heat source, and upheld the original finding in full.
Brinkworth's estate, not his executors personally, will bear the damages. The class action, launched in August 2021 and funded by the victims' property insurers, allowed uninsured losses to be pursued without placing the financial burden of litigation on those already devastated by the fire. With liability now settled, the work of calculating and distributing compensation to more than a hundred families and businesses can finally begin.
Tom Brinkworth was one of Australia's largest landholders, a man known for grand gestures—he'd saved a 17-metre crayfish statue from a town in financial trouble, and once drove 18,000 cattle across state lines. In July 2020, he lit a rubbish heap on his property in South Australia's South East. He died in August that year. Five months later, in January 2021, when temperatures climbed to 38 degrees Celsius, a fire erupted from that same heap. It burned for weeks, consuming 14,000 hectares of land, destroying three houses, and killing thousands of sheep. By the time it was contained, 132 property owners had suffered losses they would spend years trying to recover.
The question of how the fire started became a legal battleground. Brinkworth's family argued that lightning, not the rubbish heap, had sparked the blaze. They claimed a lightning strike had smouldered inside a tree for six weeks before igniting the broader fire on that hot January day. It was a plausible theory—lightning does start bushfires, and six weeks of hidden combustion is not impossible. But in the Supreme Court last year, Justice Laura Stein (now Chief Justice) rejected it. She found the lightning theory was merely theoretical, not probable. The fire, she concluded, had started from the rubbish heaps Brinkworth had lit months earlier, which had smouldered through the intervening months until conditions were right for them to spread.
Brinkworth's executors—his widow Patricia, his sons Ben and Angas, and their accountant John Finnis—appealed. They argued that Justice Stein had jumped to her conclusion without properly weighing the evidence. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment handed down on May 14 but only now becoming public, disagreed. President Mark Livesey and Justices Chris Bleby and Ben Doyle found that the family's lawyers had failed to demonstrate the fire came from anything other than the active heat of the rubbish pile. The evidence, they wrote, supported the original finding. Justice Stein had also noted that if Brinkworth had built the rubbish heap according to the Country Fire Service's Vegetation Pile Burning Code of Practice, the risk of smouldering combustion would have been significantly reduced or eliminated entirely.
The legal outcome was decisive, but the practical one was more complex. The judgment found that Brinkworth himself was liable for the fire—a finding that stuck even though he had died before the case was decided. However, his executors were not held responsible. Instead, his estate will pay substantial damages to the insurers and the 132 affected property owners. The class action, launched in August 2021, has been funded entirely by the property insurers of the bushfire victims. This arrangement meant that those who lost homes and livelihoods could pursue compensation for their uninsured losses without bearing the financial burden of litigation themselves.
Liam Campion, the lawyer representing the victims, called the upheld judgment a tremendous outcome. His clients had fought long and hard, he said, and the insurers' willingness to fund the case had been crucial. Now, with the appeal exhausted and the liability established, the focus shifts to calculating and distributing damages across more than a hundred families and businesses whose lives were upended by a fire that started in a rubbish heap on a winter day in 2020.
Citações Notáveis
The litigation has been wholly funded by the property insurers, which allowed the victims to pursue compensation for their substantial uninsured losses without being hamstrung by financial resources.— Liam Campion, lawyer for the bushfire victims
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that the court upheld this ruling five months after Brinkworth died? Couldn't they have just closed the case?
Because liability doesn't end with death. His estate—his property, his assets—remains responsible. The family had every right to appeal, and they did. But the court's confirmation means the estate now owes real money to real people.
The family argued lightning caused it. That's not a crazy theory, is it?
No, it's not. Lightning does start fires, and it can smoulder for weeks. But the court found no compelling evidence it happened here. The rubbish heap was the more probable cause, especially since Brinkworth lit it just a month before.
What if he'd followed the burning code properly?
Then the risk of smouldering combustion would have been much lower, possibly eliminated. That's what the judge found. It wasn't just that he lit the fire—it's that he lit it carelessly.
The insurers funded the whole lawsuit. Why would they do that?
Because they had to pay out claims. By funding the class action, they could recover some of that money from the liable party's estate. It also meant the victims didn't have to choose between pursuing justice and paying their own legal bills.
So what happens now?
The damages get calculated and distributed. 132 property owners, three destroyed houses, thousands of dead sheep. The estate pays. The case is over.