Beyond Corporate’s William Appleyard examines a high-profile property dispute in Much Ado About Mothing, where a £32.5 million Notting Hill sale was unravelled due to a concealed moth infestation. This blog explores how a seller’s misleading replies to standard pre-contract enquiries led to a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation, five years after completion and what the case means for developers, buyers, and advisers navigating high-value transactions.
A show home with hidden tenants
Horbury Villa ticked every “prime London” box: a Notting Hill postcode, floors of Calacatta marble and an eco-refurb that swapped man-made insulation for sheep’s wool. In 2019 cosmetic-dentist Dr Yevhen Hunyak and his philanthropist wife, Iya Patarkatsishvili, paid £32.5 million for the keys. Before exchanging they posed the standard pre-contract enquiries and received soothing replies from developer-seller William Woodward-Fisher. He was “not aware of any vermin infestation” and saw no reason to mention the pest-control invoices in his desk drawer. Weeks after moving in the buyers found moth casings behind wardrobes, in light fittings and inside the silk wallcoverings. The insects had been feasting on the very sheep-wool touted as a green upgrade. Litigation, like the moths, quickly took flight.
When replies become representations
In February 2025 Mr Justice Fancourt held that three of the seller’s written answers were not merely inaccurate; they were knowingly false. By choosing to answer, Woodward-Fisher had made express representations of fact. Because those representations were fraudulent, the buyers did not need to show their reliance was reasonable, and the usual “buyer must rely on its own survey” wording offered no refuge. Fraudulent misrepresentation was proved, and the legal consequences were inevitably severe.
Boiler-plate isn’t a shield
The judgment is a reminder that caveat emptor has limits. A vendor may stay silent, but once a question is answered the duty is to be right—or at least candid about uncertainty. Generic disclaimers can’t white-wash a reply that is flat-out wrong. As the court observed, a seller who knows the truth cannot hide behind a clause that pushes risk onto the buyer. In Woodward-Fisher’s case, the mismatch between the paperwork and the pest-control records spoke for itself.
Rescission: the remedy that still bites
Five years had passed since completion, yet the court unwound the deal. Because the house could be returned and the money repaid (with adjustments for occupation), rescission remained available. The decision shows that “done and dusted” is a state of mind, not a legal guarantee, where fraud is involved. Completion does not cement a contract if its foundations were laid on falsehoods.
The Final flutter
Horbury Villa is a sharp reminder that the quickest way to ruin a headline sale is a breezy answer to a formal legal question. Sellers who gloss over awkward facts risk unwinding the deal years after completion; buyers who take those answers at face value may inherit more than period features. The safest approach—whichever side of the table you sit on—is early, accurate disclosure backed by clear documentary evidence. That may sound obvious, but the facts of this case show how easily it is forgotten in the rush to exchange.
If you are preparing replies to enquiries, challenging a set of answers you have received, or have already completed on a transaction and are concerned that your new property has some hidden secrets, our Dispute Resolution team can help. We advise developers, investors and high-net-worth buyers on risk-proofing transactions and, when necessary, litigating the fall-out. To talk through any concerns, please get in touch with a member of the team.
