In property transactions, sellers have a duty of disclosure. Failing to disclose known issues can lead to a buyer being able to rescind the contract and claim damages.
A current and noteworthy case, highlighting the legal implications of non-disclosure in residential conveyancing transactions, is Iya Patarkatsishvili and Yevhen Hunyak v William Woodward-Fisher (2025). In 2019, Patarkatsishvili and Hunyak (“the Buyer”) purchased a £32.5 million luxury mansion in Notting Hill. After acquiring the property, they discovered a severe moth infestation and hired a pest control company to remedy the issue. The pest control company revealed that William Woodward-Fisher (“the Seller”) had hired them to deal with the issue in 2018 and that they had previously provided reports to the Seller, recommending the removal of the wool insulation that the Seller had installed during his ownership. No such reports or mention of the moth infestation, or remedial works required to remedy it, had been disclosed to the Buyer in the Seller’s replies to pre-contract enquiries. The Buyer sued the Seller for fraudulent misrepresentation and requested that the contract be rescinded and the purchase monies returned. The Seller argued that any right to rescind was lost after completion had taken place and denied any knowledge of his replies to pre-contract enquiries being false.
The Court ultimately concluded that the Seller had misrepresented the condition of the property in pre-contract enquiries, by denying awareness of any infestations or defects and knowingly making false statements. The Court agreed that the Buyer was entitled to rescind the contract and ordered the Seller to refund the purchase price in addition to paying the Buyer £4 million in damages, which included the cost of ruined clothes and stamp duty.
This case highlights the importance of transparency and honesty in residential property transactions. Sellers must provide accurate information in response to pre-contract enquiries, as misrepresentations can lead to significant legal and financial consequences. The case also reinforced the fact that the principle of “caveat emptor/ buyer beware” does not provide a seller with the ability to conceal issues or intentionally mislead a buyer. The case also led to the Court clarifying the definition of vermin to mean “animals or insects that are capable of infesting a residential house and causing a problem for the occupier of that house”, thereby broadening the scope of what must be disclosed.
For prospective buyers and sellers, this case serves as a cautionary tale about the potential risks of undisclosed property issues. It highlights the necessity of thorough due diligence by both parties and the legal obligations of sellers to disclose known defects or infestations.
