Judgment was handed down in the High Court on 10 February 2025 in the case of Patarkatsishvili and Yevhen Hunyak versus William Woodward-Fisher, with the court awarding the claimants the relief of rescission of a contract, made for the purchase of Horbury Villa, Ladbroke Road, London W11 (“the property”) that was acquired by our clients in May 2019, on the basis of allegedly fraudulent answers to pre-contract enquiries. (Judgement here).

Dispute Resolution partner Cedric Mascarenhas represented the clients from the outset of the case in August 2020 until July 2023 when the clients used their US firm’s London lawyers to take the case to trial. Happily, Child & Child’s advice was vindicated by the judgment.

The background

Contracts were exchanged for the purchase of the property in March 2019 and, as is usual in all property transactions, the purchasers relied upon the replies given by the sellers to pre-contract enquiries.

In his Judgment, Mr Justice Fancourt found for the claimants that they had been induced to proceed with the purchase of the property by misrepresentations made by Mr Woodward-Fisher in his replies to pre-contract enquiries and that such misrepresentations were not honestly given. The sellers of any property are legally obliged to give truthful answers to standard pre-contract enquiries – in this case, Mr Woodward-Fisher did not.

The Judgment makes it clear that the Mr Woodward-Fisher knew that there was a hidden defect in the property and he therefore made a number of false replies knowingly in the case of two replies and recklessly in respect of a third reply.

The judge also found that the purchasers had relied upon the misrepresentations and would have acted in a different way if the misrepresentations had not been made. In simple terms, they would not have proceeded with the purchase of the property that was blighted by a moth infestation – in other words, vermin.

Why our previous clients choose rescission, not damages alone

It is unusual for a claim of this type to be advanced for rescission rather than simple damages but in this case, Child & Child’s clients did not want to remain in the property having suffered the discomfort of living in a moth infested home, which they would not have bought if the seller had disclosed properly the history of moth infestation.

The fact that the property had been treated for moth infestation prior to the sale and that reports had been made by the local pest control companies was hidden by the seller in the knowledge that such disclosure would most likely impact any prospective sale.

It was only in September 2020, more than a year after the sale and purchase, that the historic reports were obtained independently as a result of the canvassing of local pest control companies whether they had had any involvement in relation to the house prior to our previous clients’ purchase.

The information contained in this article is general guidance only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely depending on the specific facts involved. The information in this article is provided with the understanding that the authors and presenters are not giving legal, tax, or other professional advice and services. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional legal, tax or other competent advisers. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should consult a Child & Child professional.