Fliegner v MNM Pty Ltd trading as Raine and Horne Glebe

The plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Fliegner, appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the primary judge concerning representations made by the defendant, MNM Pty Ltd trading as Raine and Horne Glebe, regarding a waterfront property purchased by the Fliegners. The dispute centred on whether the property was, in fact, waterfront property as represented, and whether the Fliegners had relied on these representations when purchasing the property.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the representations made by the real estate agent concerning the property's waterfront status constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider the meaning of "waterfront property" in the context of the property's actual position relative to the high water mark, the potential impact of the doctrine of accretion on the property's boundaries, and whether the Fliegners had suffered loss as a result of any misleading conduct.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings. It reasoned that the property was not waterfront property because the high water mark had receded significantly from the property's boundary, and the doctrine of accretion did not operate to extend the property to the current high water mark. The court found that the representations made by the agent were not misleading or deceptive in the circumstances, and even if they were, the plaintiffs had not established that they relied upon them to their detriment.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.