Legal Research
Cases
Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd

Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 29 June 1995 54 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRENNAN, DEANE, TOOHEY, GAUDRON AND McHUGH JJ

DAVID KRAKOWSKI AND ANOTHER v EUROLYNX PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER

(1995) 183 CLR 563

29 June 1995

Orders

(i) Appeal allowed.

(ii) Set aside pars 4 and 5 of the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria and, in lieu thereof, provide as follows:
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
4. The appellants, David Krakowski and Henia Krakowski, were induced to enter into the contract of sale referred to in par. 3 of the amended statement of claim by conduct of the respondent Eurolynx Properties Limited that was fraudulent and, in terms of s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act 974, misleading.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
5. If necessary, following the mediation procedure referred to in par. 6, there be a new trial limited to -
(a) a determination whether by the letter of 7 December 1990, the appellants effectively rescinded the contract of sale as alleged in par. 9 of their amended statement of claim;
(b) if yes to (a), a determination whether an account and inquiry should be ordered to restore the appellants and the respondent Eurolynx Properties Limited as closely as may be to their respective positions when they entered into the contract;
(c) a determination whether the appellants should recover any and what damages for loss and damage as a result of the conduct referred to in par. 4 of this order; (d) the orders which should be made to give effect to the above determinations;
(e) a determination of the liability of the respondent Mallesons Stephen Jaques to the respondent Eurolynx Properties Limited in the third party proceedings between them.
5A. The evidence admissible on the new trial in addition to the evidence admitted on the original trial be limited to evidence of matters occurring subsequent to the closing of evidence on the original trial.

(iii) The respondents pay the appellants' costs of this appeal.

(iv) The respondents bear their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

(v) The action be remitted to the Supreme Court of Victoria to proceed in accordance with the reasons for judgment of this Court.

Decisions

BRENNAN, DEANE, GAUDRON AND McHUGH JJ This appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria relates to a contract for the sale and purchase of shop premises in a strata title building at Preston known as the Northland Home Centre. Mr and Mrs Krakowski (the appellants) were the purchasers of the premises and the plaintiffs in the proceedings; Eurolynx Properties Limited ("Eurolynx", the first respondent) was the vendor and the defendant in the proceedings; Mallesons Stephen Jaques ("Mallesons", the second respondents) were the solicitors acting for Eurolynx in the transaction against whom Eurolynx sought relief as a third party. The transaction was entrusted to an employed solicitor who dealt with the client.

2. The negotiations for the purchase were conducted between one Norman Mermelstein, Mr Krakowski's nephew, on behalf of the purchasers and one…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1995] HCA 68
Decision Date: 29 June 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales in *Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd*. The dispute concerned allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of s 52 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now s 18 of the *Australian Consumer Law*). The appellant, Mr Krakowski, alleged that the respondent, Eurolynx Properties Ltd, had made false representations about the profitability of a business opportunity, inducing him to enter into a franchise agreement and purchase associated property.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether Eurolynx had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, and if so, whether Mr Krakowski had relied on those representations when making his decisions. Specifically, the Court had to determine the nature of the representations made, their truthfulness, and the causal connection between any misleading conduct and Mr Krakowski's loss. The Court also considered the scope of liability for misleading conduct in the context of commercial transactions and the principles of causation in such cases.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, found that Eurolynx had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. The Court reasoned that the representations made by Eurolynx regarding the profitability of the business were unsubstantiated and therefore false. It was held that a representation as to future matters is misleading if there is no reasonable basis for making it. The Court applied the principles of causation, finding that Mr Krakowski had relied on these representations, and that this reliance was a material cause of his decision to enter into the agreements and suffer loss. The Court affirmed that the test for causation in s 52 cases requires establishing that the misleading conduct was a cause of the loss, not necessarily the sole cause.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and remitting the matter to the Supreme Court for determination of the quantum of damages.

Orders