A wealthy couple have won the right to hand back a £32.5m mansion they purchased in 2019 after it turned out to be infested by moths.
Iya Patarkatsishvili and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sued the seller of their luxury London home for not informing them them about the moths, which ruined their clothes, spoiled their wine, and forced them to install hundreds of traps around their house.
They have now won their multi-million pound battle to get their money back from high-end property developer, William Woodward-Fisher.
Patarkatsishvili, the daughter of a Georgian oligarch, bought Horbury Villa in Notting Hill, which featured a swimming pool and spa, gym, wine room, library and cinema.
A High Court judge found that high-end property developer, William Woodward-Fisher, offered ‘false’ answers about the state of Horbury Villa in Notting Hill, while also failing to ‘honestly to disclose’ the ‘serious infestation’ of moths.
The court heard that Patarkatsishvili spotted the first signs of a moth ‘infestation’ a few days after she and her husband movedf into the property.
It led to the couple’s multi-million pound claim against Woodward-Fisher, who is a former champion rower who competed for Great Britain.
Suing to reverse the sale, Dr Hunyak told London’s High Court the moth plague hit a point where insects were landing on the couple and their two children’s toothbrushes, cutlery and plates of food, while he claimed he had to tip away glasses of wine after discovering moths floating there.
They said Woodward-Fisher, 68, had failed to disclose previous moth issues when answering pre-sale enquiries about the possibility of ‘vermin’ and hidden defects in the house.
Yesterday, giving judgment, Mr Justice Fancourt ruled in the couple’s favour, finding that they had been led into the purchase by Woodward-Fisher’s ‘false’ answers about the state of the property.
He said Mr Woodward-Fisher had failed ‘honestly to disclose’ the ‘serious infestation’ and reports concerning work required on the insulation where the moths had nested.
The judge made an order rescinding the sale, with Mr Woodward-Fisher having to pay back the £32.5million purchase price, less about £6million to recognise their use of the property since the purchase.
However, they will also receive about £4m in additional damages in relation to the infestation, including £15,000 for ruined clothes and the £3.7m they paid in stamp duty – taking the value of their payout to around £30m.
Georgina Muskett, senior associate at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, commented: “It is really surprising that the Judge effectively forced the seller to take the property back, especially given the relatively broad nature of the enquiries and the amount of time it took the buyers to seek to terminate the purchase contract. However, because fraudulent misrepresentation was established, rescission was the primary remedy. Ultimately, the buyers managed to persuade the Judge that they had not delayed and were able to force the property back on the seller and effectively “moth-ball” the sale contract.
“This case underlines the need for sellers to take the utmost care and caution when considering their replies to enquiries. The Judge was clearly drawn to the argument that the infestation of the insulation was a defect in the property, not apparent on inspection, like a moth to a flame. So, having answered a direct enquiry, the seller’s replies must be honestly given.
“Whilst the case turned on its facts, an unintended consequence of this case might well be that some sellers simply choose not respond to certain enquiries at all. Taking such a stance could put a sale at risk but sellers will have to weigh up that possibility against the relative likelihood of expensive and lengthy litigation with a buyer.”
Amazing what a judge will do when spoken to nicely…
Surely this strange decision could affect any property for the last 20 years. I always thought a law was common sense. On this metric , I want a refund because I get flies in my house in the summer..
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There may well be a few developers taking a deep breath after reading this one…
However, is it really so bad ? Not my area (unfortunately), but basic stats show a reasonable increase in PCL prices over this (whole) period, suggesting its now worth at least a little more? They’ve essentially awarded him £1m a year in rent and, I assume, if the sale is rescinded, then HMRC wont be entitled to the SDLP paid, so he wont be paying that element…
In practice therefore, he’s buying the house at 2019 prices, having had £32.5m to invest in other projects during the intervening period and, in real terms, received a £1m per year income ! …. Now where can I buy some moths?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I believe he has to pay them the £6m they paid in SDLT, plus money for damages, so in total he will have to pay them £30m, which means in theory they paid £8k per month for rent. But you are correct that he has had their £32m for 6 yrs to do what he wants with and now pays them back £30m and gets the house.
The plus side to this, is that hopefully other people who bought properties he has developed will know they can take action if he has done this before, he will have to pa the get the infestation cleared and chances are when it gets sold again it will be for a lower price as people will be wary of him and his properties! So whilst this may not be financially what the buyers wanted, in the long term justice may be served.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Not sure that’s correct – it says…. “Mr Woodward-Fisher having to pay back the £32.5million purchase price, less about £6million to recognise their use of the property since the purchase” meaning they have had to take a hit of £6m off the refund, giving him £1m a year …
It does state that he has to also pay damages, including stamp duty of £3.7m, but if the sale is rescinded then surely that can be reclaimed, as the sale has effectively been cancelled…
Any Lawyers out there wish to clarify?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Yes, I got my figures the wrong way round, but it does say that the total award is £30m so ‘only’ £2.5m less than they paid 6 years ago. I would be interested to know what the current market appraisal of it is though.
And RE the stamp duty, I think they would have more luck getting hens teeth and rocking horse poo out of a stone than getting money back from the tax-man after 6 years… I think it is more likely that the tax-man will ask for his pound of flesh again when the transfer back into Mr Woodward-Fisher’s name!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register