Misrepresentation claim: Horror case of buying a property with a moth infestation

Our property litigation specialists look into a recent misrepresentation claim, serving as a reminder that it never pays to falsify information when selling property.

In the case of Patarkatsishvili and Hunyak v Woodward-Fisher [2025], the claimants successfully claimed that the defendant deliberately misrepresented facts in order to conceal a serious moth infestation in a property sale transaction.

Patarkatsishvili and Hunyak (the claimants) bought a £32.5M mansion in West London from Woodward-Fisher (the defendant) in May 2019. However, when responding to three pre-contract enquiries, the defendant provided false answers to avoid disclosing the severe moth infestation. This resulted in the claimants agreeing to purchase the property for £32.5 million.

The property was described by the claimants as “crawling with larvae.” The moths had infested the insulation of the property and, consequently, moths were found throughout the property, damaging the clothes of the claimants and, perhaps more importantly, spoiling their wine. The claimants discussed having to swat away 100 moths per day.

As a result of these issues, the claimants sought an order for the repayment of the purchase price with interest. They further sought damages for the losses incurred from purchasing the property and attempting to resolve the infestation.

The defendant disputed their claim, arguing that there was no misrepresentation and that the claimants had not relied upon the pre-contract replies. He also argued that the claimants had delayed excessively in bringing their claim such that they could not rescind the contract and that he could not repay the purchase money in any event.

What is misrepresentation?

Misrepresentation is a false statement of the facts which influences a party’s decision making when entering into a contract. There are different levels of misrepresentation, with the claimants in this case claiming the top level: fraudulent misrepresentation.

In this case, it was found that there were three misrepresentations in the pre-contract enquiry replies, namely:

1. the defendant denied knowledge of any vermin infestation in the house
2. the defendant denied there having been any reports on vermin infestation or on the fabric of the property
3. the defendant stated he did not know of any hidden defects in the property.

Moth misrepresentation claim judgment

In this case, the court ruled that the claimants relied on the false representations when entering into an agreement to purchase the property. This was on the basis that it was found that the defendant did not honestly believe his replies were truthful, as he knew there had been a serious moth infestation and he had received and read at least two reports from a pest control company.

The purchase agreement was therefore rescinded, and it was ordered that the defendant refund the purchase price. This was not the full £32.5M as the judge accounted for the time the claimants had lived in the property.

As the defendant was not in a position to refund the purchase price, the property was transferred back to him to sell, with the claimants’ interest being protected by an equitable lien.

However, significant damages were awarded, including the stamp duty land tax, the costs paid on purchase and the costs incurred in seeking to eradicate the moth infestation. A separate hearing is due to be held to deal with the exact sums.

If you have a misrepresentation claim, what should you do?

If you believe that you entered into a contract to purchase a property based on misrepresentation – or alternatively, you are defending a claim of this nature – please get in touch with one of our property disputes specialists.

Our property disputes team keep up to date on all changes to the law, ensuring that we give the best advice and can help to resolve any issues you may have regarding property.