Moths and Replies to Enquiries – A Salutary Lesson

Iya Patarkatsishvili (1) Yevhen Hunyak v William Woodward – Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch)

The judgment of Mr Justice Fancourt sitting in the High Court of Justice on 10 February 2025 is an interesting one and provides a reminder to take care when answering enquiries as a seller.

In this case it was established that the seller of a house, Mr Woodward-Fisher, had failed to disclose information about a moth infestation when he sold his house in Ladbroke Road, London W11 to the buyers, Ms Patarkatsishvili and Dr Hunyak for £32.5 million in May 2019.

After purchasing the property, Ms Patarkatsishvili and Dr Hunyak uncovered a severe moth infestation at the property as a result of wool insulation that Mr Woodward-Fisher had installed in the property during an earlier £10m extension project. On discovering in September 2020 evidence that suggested that Mr Woodward-Fisher knew about the problem prior to the sale, the buyers purported to rescind the contract on 10 May 2021 and subsequently issued proceedings.

Mr Woodward-Fisher had obtained reports identifying moth infestation issues at the property prior to responding to the pre-contract enquiries but failed to disclose them and misrepresented in his replies he was not aware of any vermin infestation. The court was satisfied that Mr Woodward-Fisher knew or suspected that his replies to the enquiries were not true and had no difficulty with finding in the circumstances that the moth infestation amounted to a vermin infestation.

The court was further satisfied that had Ms Patarkatsishvili and Dr Hunyak been aware of the moth infestation of the property, they would not have continued with the purchase. The court held that the seller falsely misrepresented the condition of the property and the buyers had relied upon those representations in order to purchase the property.

Notwithstanding the time that had passed between the transfer of the property on 2 May 2019 and the election to rescind on 10 May 2021, the court held that the buyers were entitled to rescind the contract. The property would therefore be transferred back to the seller and the seller would have to return the purchase price of £32.5 million to the buyers, but with a discount to reflect the use the buyers had been able to make of the property. In addition, the buyers were also awarded substantial damages including wasted legal costs and costs of a scheme of work to remove the moth infestation.

Although the legal principle of caveat emptor (“buyer beware”) still applies when purchasing property, this judgment illustrates the importance of transparency and honesty when sellers are disclosing information and responding to pre-contract enquiries when dealing with property sales.

If you would like to discuss any of the matters raised in this article please contact Mamta Kudhail.