Judgment was handed down last week in the misrepresentation claim concerning a clothes-moth infestation at a £32.5m West London home, Horbury Villa (Iya Patarkatsishvili and Yevhen Hunyak v William Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch)), a case covered in our previous article. 

Background

As noted in the judgment, when renovating and altering the villa in 2012-2013, Mr Woodward-Fisher attempted to “gain some environmental points with the planning authority” by using natural wool insulation in the walls. That was the beginning of his downfall.

When questioned by the buyers before conclusion of the sale contract in 2019 about “vermin infestation”, reports regarding vermin and/or the fabric of the property, and latent defects, Mr Woodward-Fisher responded that he was not aware of any. That was despite knowing that moths were a problem at the villa, and despite having been told that the only way to get rid of them would be to remove all the natural wool insulation. He said he responded in this way because he believed that moths were not included in the concept “vermin”, and/or that information from pest control companies in relation to the property was not “reports” or did not concern the “fabric” of the property. He also claimed not to have read the reports and/or to have thought they were incorrect.

As it turned out, the woollen insulation was infested with moths, and had been for years, causing severe problems. The Claimants carried out remedial work at the cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds, but that still did not resolve all issues.

Judgment

Mr Justice Fancourt found that Mr Woodward-Fisher knowingly or recklessly gave false replies to the relevant pre-contract enquires. His evidence that he did not read the reports from pest-control companies was found to be “incredible”.

Witness credibility is, of course, crucial in a case of fraudulent misrepresentation, and the judgment includes an interesting review of the impression made on the judge by various witnesses (it seems that Ms Patarkatsishvili did not give evidence). The judge also made a careful assessment of statements made by witnesses by reference to contemporaneous emails and documents.

Mr and Mrs Woodward-Fisher were found to prioritise arguing their case over honestly answering questions, and some of their evidence was “manifestly untrue”. They were also forced into damaging admissions by cross-examination. Dr Hunyak, the Claimants' advisor Mr Ershikov, and the Claimants' entomology expert were by contrast found to be honest and generally reliable, although the judge thought that Dr Hunyak had become “sensitised” to moths and tended to exaggerate remaining problems as a result.

Remedy

Mr Woodward-Fisher was ordered to take back the villa and refund the buyers the purchase price. He must also pay damages of c. £4m, including £3.7m for the SDLT paid by the Claimants on the purchase, approximately £300,000 for remedial works, over £18,500 for further moth treatment, and £15,000 for damaged clothes. 

The Claimants delayed some seven and a half months between realising they had a right to rescind the contract and electing to do so. Delay might some cases mean the court would no longer permit cancellation of the contract. However, in this case the delay, although “somewhat longer than one might have expected”, was found to be understandable and not to have prejudiced the Defendant.  

Unsurprisingly, Mr Woodward-Fisher no longer has the funds needed to refund the buyers: another argument advanced by him that the contract must stay in place. However, it is the ability of the Claimants to return the house, not the Defendant’s ability to refund them, which is key to the availability of rescission. The court therefore ordered that the property be returned to Mr Woodward-Fisher, subject to a charge in favour of the Claimants, with a view to him selling it (after dealing with any remaining issues) and repaying the Claimants from the proceeds, as well as liquidation of other assets, which include a home in Chelsea and a share in a second home in France.

Mr Woodward-Fisher has indicated he will be appealing the decision.