Key Lessons on Misrepresentation for UK Property Sellers

Below is a comprehensive article on Iya Patarkatsishvili & Yevhen Hunyak v William Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch), focusing on its significance for misrepresentation law and its implications for UK property sellers:

Overview of the Case

In May 2019, Iya Patarkatsishvili and Yevhen Hunyak purchased Horbury Villa, a luxury Notting Hill mansion, for £32.5 million. Shortly after completion, the buyers discovered a serious clothes moth infestation embedded in the house’s wool insulation. They later uncovered 2018 pest-control reports (by Rentokil/Environ) that the seller, William Woodward-Fisher, had received, recommending removal of the wool insulation.

The buyers sued in February 2025, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation in Woodward-Fisher’s replies to pre-contract enquiries claiming:

  1. He was unaware of any vermin infestation.
  2. He had no reports regarding infestation or fabric concerns.
  3. He knew of no hidden defects.

The High Court, led by Mr Justice Fancourt, confirmed that:

  • – These statements were false—moth infestation counted as vermin; written reports existed and were known; and the insulation issue was a latent defect.
  • – Woodward-Fisher knew or was reckless about the falsity of these replies.
  • – The buyers and their solicitors relied on these misrepresentations when deciding to proceed

Defendant’s Defences & Court’s Response

Woodward-Fisher argued:

  • Delay/Affirmation: The claimants waited seven months after discovering the infestation—this did not bar rescission. Their continued residence did not constitute affirmation .

Inability to Repay: His claim that he couldn’t repay the full £32.5 million was insufficient to block rescission. The court granted rescission with an equitable lien on the property and allowed adjusted repayment terms.

Remedies Awarded

Mr Justice Fancourt ordered that:

  • The sale contract be rescinded, with legal title reverting to Woodward-Fisher, but subject to a lien in favor of the buyers.

Full refund of the £32.5 million purchase price, adjusted for the buyers’ use of the property (estimated ~£6 million).

Damages ~£4–5 million covering stamp duty, destroyed clothing, pest-control costs, and interest & legal fees.

Key Legal Lessons

  1. Sellers must answer honestly: If a seller opts to respond to pre-contract enquiries, any inaccuracies—intentional or reckless—can lead to fraud liability.
  2. “Caveat emptor” no cover-up license: Sellers cannot rely on buyers to investigate issues if their own answers are false or misleading.
  3. Broader definition of “vermin”: The court confirmed clothes moths constitute vermin infesting a property—latent infestations must be disclosed.
  4. Misrepresentation remedy remains robust: Even in high-value and complex transactions, fraudulent misrepresentation can result in rescission, restitution, and substantial damages—even if the seller claims financial incapacity.

What This Means for UK Property Sellers

  • Full disclosure is essential. If there’s known infestation, defects, or reports—even if not obvious—respond accurately or consult legal counsel.

Selectivity in answering enquiries isn’t permitted. If uncertain, better to answer truthfully or seek professional advice than risk fraud liability.

Recognise “liability risk” for false answers—even unintentional ones can trigger severe consequences, such as rescission, damages, liens.

Prepare for remedy enforcement. Courts can allow rescission even without immediate seller repayment, using tools like equitable liens.

Practical Takeaways

  • Sellers should maintain records (e.g. pest reports, surveys) and provide transparent responses to all pre-contract enquiries.

Buyers should study seller replies carefully and ask for documentation—including pest-related and fabric reports.

Solicitors and conveyancers must guide sellers on the scope of “vermin” and “defect” and ensure replies reflect all known issues. Advise clients not to overreach or mislead.

Final Word

The Patarkatsishvili v Woodward-Fisher decision is a landmark reinforcement of honesty in property transactions. It reinforces that fraudulent misrepresentation is not limited by property value, and that equity and contract law can work together to unwind even multimillion-pound deals when a seller lies.

For sellers in the UK, especially those dealing with high-value or complex homes, this judgment is a clear signal: answer pre-contract enquiries with candour and caution—or face the prospect of losing both the property and significant sums in litigation.

The contents of this post do not constitute legal advice and are provided for general information purposes only ■