Moths, mansions, and misrepresentation: High Court decision impacts buyers and sellers

High society intrigue was abundant in a recent High Court case which featured the unlikely combination of an enviable mansion, clothes moths, and a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. In this article, we consider the case and its impact on buyers and sellers of properties in the UK. 

Case background

The case began in 2012, when Horbury Villa, a £32.5 million mansion situated in Ladbroke Grove, London was renovated by then-owner Mr Woodward-Fisher. Mr Woodward-Fisher installed natural wool insulation as part of wider renovations within the property. This insulation transpired to be prime breeding ground for clothes moths.

By early 2018, the property was suffering from an infestation. Whilst Mr Woodward-Fisher and his wife took steps to eradicate the pests, the property remained plagued by them.

In May 2019, couple Ms Patarkatsishvili and Mr Hunyak bought the property from Mr Woodward-Fisher. In reply to the standard pre-contract enquiries, Mr Woodward-Fisher stated that:

1. He was not aware of any vermin infestations at the property.
2. There were no reports on any such infestations.
3. He was not aware of any defects in the property.

At the time of purchase, the clothes moth infestation had not been brought to the attention of Ms Patarkatsishvili and Mr Hunyak. However, within days of moving into the property, it quickly became apparent that there was a serious problem. Holes were discovered in expensive clothing and Dr Hunyak’s witness evidence referenced finding them in his wine glass.

In September 2020, Ms Patarkatsishvili and Mr Hunyak realised that the replies to pre-contract enquiries given by Mr Woodward-Fisher were potentially untruthful. On 10 May 2021, the couple issued a claim against him for fraudulent misrepresentation and litigation commenced.

How was fraudulent misrepresentation established in the case?

The judge found that three of Mr Woodward-Fisher’s replies to pre-contract enquiries equated to false representations - he did not honestly believe the replies he gave to two of the enquiries and he was found, on balance, to be reckless in his response to the third enquiry.

In reliance on the advice given about the replies, Ms Patarkatsishvili and Mr Hunyak proceeded to complete their purchase of the property. This reliance put Ms Patarkatsishvili and Mr Hunyak at a considerable disadvantage and so fraudulent misrepresentation was established. 

The standard remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation is damages but in this instance the judge ordered recission of the contract for sale. The remedy of recission puts both parties in the position they were in before the reliance on the fraudulent misrepresentations. The order required Ms Patarkatsishvili and Mr Hunyak to hand the property back to Mr Woodward-Fisher with a lien, which is a type of charge, over the property until the full purchase price is repaid. This innovative solution from the court achieved justice for Ms Patarkatsishvili and Mr Hunyak whilst accounting for Mr Woodward-Fisher’s current financial situation.

What does this case mean for sellers?

1. Sellers must reply to pre-contract enquiries with honesty. As stated by the judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, 'What a seller does have to do is provide honest answers to pre-contract enquiries, if they answer them at all.'
2. Whilst the concept of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) still applies, the seller must be conscious of the implications of dishonesty when disclosing information. As this case demonstrates, litigation is a lengthy and expensive process, and is best avoided from the outset where possible. Answering enquiries truthfully will benefit you in the long run.
3. If there is an issue, care must be taken when disclosing it. Even if you would rather not disclose it, and even if the issue that comes to mind is not an exact fit to the enquiry posed, it is important to discuss this with your solicitor to ensure your position is protected adequately.
4. Read all the enquiries together, not in isolation. The individual questions within the sections of the enquiries form impact on one another, and dishonesty in one may filter through the other responses you make, as shown in this case.

Reminders for buyers

1. Pay attention to the responses you receive to your enquiries. The buyer must still be careful to investigate anything they are uncertain about in the property.
2. A range of potential remedies are available to a buyer who relies on misrepresentations. The case shows the flexibility of the court when awarding recission. The judge opened up the possibility of recission where on the face of it the remedy may have been barred by the seller’s financial position. However, the unusual means of a lien to facilitate recission may well be reserved for the facts of this extreme case.

If you need clarity on how this ruling affects you, please get in touch with our property disputes team.

The full case ruling is available here: Iya Patarkatsishvili and Yevhen Hunyak v William Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch)