In Patarkatsishvili & Anor v Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch), the High Court tackled a case that reads like a cautionary tale for anyone tempted to play fast and loose with replies to pre-contract enquiries. It involved a £32.5 million mansion, an enthusiastic seller, unwelcome winged tenants, and what one might term a rather spectacular case of misrepresentation about moths (moth-rep, if you will…)
The Facts: A Woolly Approach to Disclosure
The seller, William Woodward-Fisher, had spent a fortune transforming his Victorian townhouse into a luxury home. Part of this transformation included the use of wool-based insulation, which, as it turned out, was more inviting to moths than to high-net-worth buyers. By 2018, the seller’s wife had noticed an infestation. Various pest control firms were called in, and at least one provided reports stating—rather unhelpfully for the seller’s future plans—that the infestation was embedded within the wool insulation and could only be eradicated by ripping it out entirely.
Not keen on that option, the seller instead proceeded with periodic spray treatments and continued his marketing efforts. When a keen buyer emerged, their solicitors did what any good lawyers would do: they raised pre-contract enquiries, including whether the property had been affected by vermin infestation.
Woodward-Fisher’s response? A classic piece of legal artistry:
- He was “not aware” of any such issues,
- He had not had the property “surveyed” for such matters,
- The buyer should rely on their “own inspections and professional advice.”
In other words, the sort of answer that sounds perfectly reasonable until you remember that the seller had, in fact, already been told by experts that his house was a breeding ground for moths.
The Legal Issues: When “Not Aware” Won’t Save You
Once the buyers discovered the truth—after moving in and finding themselves in an entomological nightmare—they sought rescission, arguing fraudulent misrepresentation.
The court’s analysis turned on three key points:
-
Were the replies actually false?
Yes. The seller’s prior knowledge of the moth infestation, coupled with the expert reports explicitly blaming the insulation, made his “not aware” response unsustainable. This was not a case of innocent oversight but a deliberate failure to disclose.
-
Did the buyers rely on the replies?
Yes. The buyers’ solicitors had reviewed the responses and, finding no red flags, advised that there was no reason not to proceed with the purchase. Had the infestation been disclosed, it is highly unlikely they would have bought the property at the agreed price, if at all.
-
Did the seller know or suspect the replies were untrue?
Absolutely. The evidence showed he was well aware of the issue, had sought professional advice on it, and had chosen to sidestep disclosure by hiding behind careful wording. This took the case beyond negligent misrepresentation into the realm of fraud.
The judgment reinforced that fraudulent misrepresentation in property transactions carries severe consequences. The court granted rescission, allowing the buyers to unwind the transaction entirely and reclaim their £32.5 million, plus damages. The seller, meanwhile, found himself not only without his money but also still in possession of a moth-ridden mansion—and no doubt with a much less favourable reputation in high-end property circles.
Buyer Beware? Not Quite.
It is often said that caveat emptor – buyer beware – governs property transactions. Buyers are expected to conduct surveys, seek legal advice, and make their own investigations. However, caveat emptor is not a licence for sellers to mislead. Where a seller actively conceals defects or provides misleading replies to enquiries, the law will step in.
Here, the buyers did their due diligence. They instructed top-tier solicitors, conducted inspections, and raised enquiries. But no amount of surveyor’s reports can detect what the seller has deliberately omitted. The court found that the buyers had relied on the seller’s representations, and crucially, that those representations were knowingly false. That turned this from a case of non-disclosure into one of fraudulent misrepresentation, rendering caveat emptor somewhat irrelevant.
If the Seller had refused to answer, stating “This question does not relate to the legal title of the property, and we will not be answering it. We refer to you paragraph 15 of the Law Society Conveyancing Protocol (2019) – Link HERE. Please reply upon your own searches and enquiries”, would have this been the difference maker? We will never know….
The Takeaway: “Not Aware” Is Not a Get-Out Clause
Replies to enquiries are not just a paperwork exercise. They are statements that can—and will—be scrutinised if a dispute arises. If a seller knows about a defect but chooses to be economical with the truth, they risk not only civil liability but, in extreme cases, potential criminal consequences under fraud legislation.
The ruling is a reminder that property transactions rely on trust. A buyer cannot (and should not have to) knock down walls to verify whether the seller’s answers are honest. The burden is on the buyer to ask the questions, and on the seller to ensure their replies are accurate. If they know something material, they must disclose it (or just keep their mouths shut?!)
Failing to do so? Well, that’s how you end up in a moth-rep case—and, as Mr. Woodward-Fisher learned, those don’t tend to end well.
Contact our Residential Property team
For more information about Bishop & Sewell’s residential property services please contact Charlie Davidson Senior Associate in the firm’s Residential Property team: cdavidson@bishopandsewell.co.uk or follow Charlie; Hound of Holborn on LinkedIn.
The above is accurate as at 11 February 2025. The information above may be subject to change.
The content of this note should not be considered legal advice and each matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
