Successful multi-million-pound claim to return a £32.5 million luxury home after an infestation of moths

In 2019, Iya Patarkatsishvili and Dr Yevhen Hunyak (“the Couple”) purchased a £32.5 million luxury mansion in Notting Hill, West London (“the Property”) from a high-end property developer, Mr William Woodward-Fisher. The Property had been first purchased by Mr Woodward-Fisher in 2011, who had lived there with his wife whilst it was remodelled and extended by 200% prior to putting it up for sale.

During Mr and Mrs Woodward-Fisher’s residence in the Property in 2018, moths damaged some expensive clothing. Two quotes from pest control companies were subsequently obtained and the cost of treatment was estimate at around £10,000. Mr Woodward-Fisher hired Environ to complete various treatments on the Property. At the end of these treatments, it was then concluded by Environ that unless all the insultation was replaced, the moth issue would not go away.

Unfortunately, the insultation was not replaced as recommended and shortly after purchasing the property, the Couple found themselves swarmed by moths. Despite having installed 400 traps around the property, the infestation ruined their clothes, wine, and everyday items such as toothbrushes and food.

The Claim

The Couple sued Mr Woodward-Fisher, requesting rescission of the contract for the purchase of the Property on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentations given that Mr Woodward-Fisher had falsely answered the pre-sale enquiries and had failed to disclose the previous moth issues. The Couple argued that if the misrepresentations had not been made, then they would not have purchased the Property.

The Outcome

On the 10 February 2025, Mr Justice Fancourt ruled in the Couple’s favour and an order rescinding the sale contract was made.

Overall, it was held that Mr Woodward-Fisher had provided false answers to the enquiries made pre-contract in respect of the state of the Property by stating he was unaware of any vermin infestation or defects at the Property.

• Firstly, the definition of vermin was clarified and defined as “animals or insects that are capable of infesting a residential house and causing a problem to the occupier or the house.” Similarly, it was made clear that an infestation of moths is an infestation of vermin in this context.
• Secondly, the failure to disclose the two pest control reports obtained was addressed. It was held that Mr Woodward-fisher had failed to honestly disclose the serious infestation of the moths, which he was aware of following the receipt of the Environ report which described the moth infestation in the insultation.
• Lastly, whilst Mr Woodward-Fisher was not found to have deliberately deceived the Couple, he was aware that disclosure of such reports would likely cause the sale to fall through.

It is important to note that when determining what remedy to provide the Couple, Mr Justice Fancourt confirmed that “the question is rather whether, although the parties cannot be restored to their precise positions prior to the contract, restitution can be achieved in a practically just way by making adjustments and allowances” and if fraud is found, “the relevant question is whether there is any bar to rescission being awarded”.

Consequentially, whilst the Couple won the right to return the £32.5 million mansion, Mr Justice Fancourt invoked what he termed as “practical justice” and reduced the amount of the purchase price to be returned to the Couple by £6 million to reflect their use of the Property since its purchase. Although, in addition to the reduced purchase price, the Couple were also granted around £4 million in additional damages including £15,000 for the ruined clothes and £3.7 million paid on Stamp Duty Tax. Thus, the overall compensation payable to the Couple will be around £30 million.

How will this affect future sales?

Reassurance was provided by Mr Justice Fancourt’s closing remarks that “the suggestion that a conclusion of misrepresentation in this extreme case will cause a general conveyancing problem is simply wrong”. This rejected Mr Woodward-Fisher’s claim that a finding of misrepresentation would result in all sellers having to disclose any moth issues to buyers and implies future cases will be fact dependent. In his judgment, Mr Justice Fancourt also restricted what is required from pre-contract enquiries by stating that only written, not oral, reports were required to be provided to buyers.

Sellers need to ensure they provide honest answers to the pre-sale enquiries, or if uncertain, to not answer incorrectly.