• 12 Feb 2025
• •
• 2 min read

‘Caveat venditor’ – sellers beware as vendor faces millions in losses over sale of moth infested mansion

Mr Justice Fancourt handed down a judgment on Monday 10 February allowing the disgruntled purchasers of a £32.5million mansion to hand back the property, nearly five years after discovering that it was infested with moths.

The claimants, Mrs Patarkatsishvili and her husband, purchased Horbury Villa in Ladbrook Grove from the defendant, Mr Woodward-Fisher, back in 2019. Soon after the purchase, the claimants discovered that the property was infested with moths, finding them on their children’s toothbrushes, on their cutlery and in their clothing.

The claimants alleged that the defendant falsely responded to pre-contract enquiries thereby concealing a serious moth infestation in the property. The defendant disputed that misrepresentations were made, but nonetheless argued that the claimants had waived their right to rescind the contract due to excessive delays in bringing the claim.

The defendant claimed he had no knowledge of a vermin infestation or any serious defect in the property, and thus failed to detail this during the conveyancing process. The Judge found that three replies in the pre-contract enquiries were false. In fact, there had been two pest control reports prior to the sale of the property detailing a serious moth infestation. The defendant later claimed that he was not aware that moths were considered vermin.

The defendant’s failure to disclose the infestation honestly was considered fraudulent misrepresentation by the Mr Justice Fancourt, who ordered that recission of the sale was the primary remedy.

The defendant was ordered to pay back a proportion of the £32.5 million purchase price, plus substantial damages for stamp duty land tax, all costs incurred when seeking to eradicate the infestation, and for ruined clothing.

Mr Justice Fancourt’s decision surprised legal professionals considering the claimant’s apparent delay in seeking to terminate the purchase contract. However, the claimants were successful in persuading the Judge that they did not delay and were able to force the property back on the defendant. Mr Justice Fancourt confirmed that the defendant’s inability to repay the purchase price before the property is re-sold was not a bar to an order for recission.

This case underlines the importance for sellers to take considerable care and caution when responding to enquiries within residential transactions and ensure that their responses to enquiries are honest and truthful. A potential consequence of this ruling is that future sellers may be more reluctant to respond to certain pre-contract enquiries, fearing legal exposure. While this may protect them from litigation, it could jeopardise or at least delay transactions by making buyers more cautious.

Disclaimer

This information is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We recommend seeking professional advice before taking any action on the information provided. If you would like to discuss your specific circumstances, please feel free to contact us on 0800 2800 421.