This week, in Patarkatsishvili & Anor v Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch), the danger of non-disclosure and evading replies to pre-contract enquiries has come to haunt a seller when a High Court judge ordered that a couple who bought a moth infested £32.5m mansion could have the majority of their monies returned.
The seller in this case, William Woodward-Fisher, when conducting renovation works had included a wool-based insulation in the walls of his luxury Victorian property in West London. This was quite literally a ‘moth trap’ and the little creatures bred within and infested the insulation, which in turn resulted in Mr Woodward-Fisher’s wife noticing the problem.
Various pest control treatments were undertaken which involved periodic sprays and other such preventive measures resulting in at least two reports from pest control companies in 2018 which stated the need to remove the insulation in order to get rid of the infestation.
The Judgement
The court’s analysis and subsequent judgement was based on three main points which ultimately led to the contract being rescinded.
- The Seller provided false replies. Three replies to the pre-contract enquiries were found to be false. Having been aware of the moth infestation and the pest control companies clearly stating that the problem was in the insulation, the Seller’s reply of ‘not aware’ was not considered to be truthful. It was found that the Seller purposely withheld information when stating that he never had the property surveyed for such a problem. He also stated that he was not aware of any hidden defect in the property.
- The Buyer relied on these replies on the basis that they believed they were true. The Buyer’s lawyers reported to the buyer to state that there was no information within the replies to enquiries which concerned them, which in turn led to the Buyer’s decision to process with the purchase transaction. The Buyers stated that had they known about the infestation, they would not have committed to the purchase.
- The Seller knew that the replies he had provided were false. The Seller was well aware of this issue and was purposefully evasive when providing replies to the pre-contract enquiries that were raised. The Seller was not only negligent, he was fraudulent in his misrepresentation.
The Takeaway
The Buyers only discovered the problem after moving in which turned out to be a nightmare, having found moths in their clothes, glassware, and on their toothbrushes.
Caveat emptor is a phrase which is thrown around a great deal in a property transaction, however, it cannot be used as a license to evade and purposefully mislead.
Replies to enquiries must be answered as true statements which cannot be taken as a simple formality. A buyer should be able to rely on these as correct, accurate representations and would be expected to undertake reasonable inspections and not knock down every wall in the property to ensure that the representations made in the replies are correct.
In this case, there was a clear misrepresentation made by the Seller, and the Buyer had relied on these to ultimately proceed with the purchase.
The judge rules that the statements made by the Seller were ‘fraudulent’ and intentionally false. It was not simply an oversight, it was clear that the Seller did not believe the replies he had given. This is what ultimately turned the case for the Buyers as rescission would be the primary remedy.
Had the Seller simply replied ‘rely on survey’, the court may have had more difficulty in reaching a decision. Indeed, the Law Society’s protocol cautions against solicitors raising enquiries as to the physical condition of properties.
We will have to see if this leads to a different approach in the enquiry process.
If you require conveyancing services, please contact Meera Malde or our wider Residential Real Estate team.
