Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd [1995] HCA 68

Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd [1995] HCA 68

Eurolynx, by providing the lease and contract documentation without disclosure of the separate agreement with the tenant, made a fraudulent and misleading representation that induced the purchasers to enter the contract of sale. The High Court held that these circumstances amounted to both fraudulent misrepresentation and misleading conduct in terms of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act, entitling the purchasers to seek rescission and/or damages, subject to further determination in trial limited to issues of rescission effectiveness and quantum of damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Full Court of Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Orders of the Full Court varied. New trial directed on limited issues. Action remitted to Supreme Court of Victoria. Respondents to pay appellants’ costs of this appeal.
Legal Topics
['fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'deceit' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'remedies for Breach of Contract' 'rescission' 'inducement to Contract' 'professional Negligence' 'third Party Proceedings']
['contract Law' 'equity and Trusts' 'consumer Protection Law' 'property Law'] ['fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'deceit' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'remedies for Breach of Contract' 'rescission' 'inducement to Contract' 'professional Negligence' 'third Party Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Full Court of Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Eurolynx Properties Ltd made a fraudulent or misleading representation inducing the purchasers to enter the contract of sale' 'Whether the contractual arrangements with the tenant were properly disclosed' 'Whether the appellants were entitled to rescind the contract or claim damages' 'Whether Mallesons Stephen Jaques owed a duty of care to Eurolynx and was liable in negligence']

Ratio Decidendi

Eurolynx, by providing the lease and contract documentation without disclosure of the separate agreement with the tenant, made a fraudulent and misleading representation that induced the purchasers to enter the contract of sale. The High Court held that these circumstances amounted to both fraudulent misrepresentation and misleading conduct in terms of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act, entitling the purchasers to seek rescission and/or damages, subject to further determination in trial limited to issues of rescission effectiveness and quantum of damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Orders of the Full Court varied. New trial directed on limited issues. Action remitted to Supreme Court of Victoria. Respondents to pay appellants’ costs of this appeal.

Orders

  • ['Set aside paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria.' 'Declaration that the appellants were induced to enter the contract of sale by fraudulent and misleading conduct of Eurolynx Properties Ltd.' 'If necessary, following mediation, new trial limited to determinations...