Krakowski & Anor v Eurolynx Properties Ltd

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicants, Krakowski and another, sought to appeal a decision of a lower court against the respondent, Eurolynx Properties Ltd, and Mallesons Stephen Jaques. The core of the dispute concerned allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in relation to a property transaction.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the lower courts had correctly determined the case of fraud and misrepresentation as pleaded and conducted by the plaintiffs. Specifically, the Court was asked to consider whether the Full Court had erred in its assessment of the trial judge's findings, particularly in light of a perceived misconception by the trial judge regarding the nature of the misrepresentation alleged. The respondent argued that the applicants were attempting to raise a new case on appeal, distinct from the case pleaded and conducted at trial and on appeal.

The respondent contended that the applicants had initially pleaded a case of fraudulent concealment, then shifted to a case of positive misrepresentation, and were now seeking to advance a third, different case before the High Court. The respondent argued that this departure from the original pleadings and conduct of the case meant that the issues raised did not present a matter of principle warranting special leave, and that any anomalies had arisen due to the applicants' own conduct. The respondent also referred to the importance of how fraud must be pleaded, as emphasised in *Banque Commerciale SA v Akhil*, and submitted that the Court should look at the pleadings and the conduct of the case to determine if the findings below were open.

The High Court was considering whether to grant special leave to appeal. The outcome of the special leave application is not detailed in the provided transcript.