Why Property Sellers Must Disclose Issues

When selling a property, honesty is not just a moral principle – it’s a legal obligation. Failing to disclose adverse aspects of your home does not just risk souring the buyer’s experience; it could lead to long-lasting and expensive consequences. A recent High Court ruling should serve as a stark warning.

On 10 February 2025, the High Court made waves with its decision in the case of Patarkatsishvili and another v Woodward-Fisher. The case involved the purchase of a £32.5 million London mansion – and the thousands of uninvited guests that came with it. 

These were not extended family or squatters; they were moths. What followed was a legal battle that left the seller facing significant financial losses, offering valuable lessons for anyone selling a home.

Here, we explore what went wrong, how to avoid similar pitfalls, and why transparency is your safest route when selling your property.

The Case at a Glance

The case centered on Iya Patarkatsishvili and Yehven Hunyak, the buyers of a luxury Notting Hill mansion sold by Mr. Woodward-Fisher. Soon after moving in, they discovered a severe infestation of clothes moths. Evidence presented to the court revealed that the seller’s wife had received pest control reports before the sale. Despite this, Mr. Woodward-Fisher responded during Commercial Property Standard Enquiries (CPSEs) that he was not aware of any issues with vermin on the property. This response was found to be knowingly false.

The court deemed Mr. Woodward-Fisher guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation and ruled that the sale contract should be rescinded. This meant that the seller was ordered to buy the mansion back and compensate the buyers for damages. These damages included pest control costs and the loss of enjoyment of what was supposed to be their dream home.

The Financial Fallout

The ruling left Mr. Woodward-Fisher not only without his multi-million-pound property sale but also with potentially crippling costs. The buyers will retain a lien (legal claim) over the property until their debt is fully repaid. This case underscores the legal weight of disclosure obligations and the potentially disastrous repercussions of failing to meet them.

What Is Required of Sellers?

When selling a property, you will typically complete a Property Information Form. This requires you to disclose information about various aspects of the property, such as its physical condition, any disputes, and anything else that could affect its value or habitability.

While the principle of caveat emptor (“buyer beware”) suggests that buyers should do their own due diligence, this case demonstrates the limits of that idea. Sellers cannot rely on caveat emptor to excuse false, incomplete, or misleading answers in response to pre-contract enquiries. Below are the key takeaways from the Patarkatsishvili v Woodward-Fisher ruling.

1. Honesty Is Non-Negotiable

Under the law, if you choose to respond to questions raised by the buyer, your answers must be truthful and complete. This may seem obvious, but it’s worth reiterating in light of this case. Mr. Woodward-Fisher could have avoided his legal troubles by answering honestly about the pest reports or opting not to answer those particular enquiries. 

The takeaway here is simple: if you respond, be truthful. Half-truths or omissions that mislead the buyer are just as dangerous as outright lies.

2. Recklessness Can Be Costly

One damning aspect of this case was the seller’s recklessness. Even if you don’t definitively know something is false, being careless with your statements or indifferent to the truth can still constitute misrepresentation. The court found that Mr. Woodward-Fisher either knew or didn’t care that his statements regarding vermin were untrue. This disregard for the truth turned into fraudulent misrepresentation.

Before responding to buyer enquiries, take the time to review all relevant reports and information. If you are unsure about the accuracy of a response, consult professionals like your solicitor or surveyor.

3. Buyers’ Solicitors Count as Buyers

Another important takeaway is that the information you provide does not just affect the individual buyer. Responses given to a buyer’s solicitor are considered legally equivalent to telling the buyer directly. Even if the buyer never reads your answers, as soon as those responses are sent to their solicitor, they are binding.

This reinforces the need for accuracy and honesty. A casual or rushed answer to an email or form could significantly impact the sale long after the transaction.

4. Recission Isn’t Out of Reach

An unusual but noteworthy point in this case was the court's decision to rescind the sale contract. This means the buyers were allowed to walk away from the deal and were reimbursed as if the sale had never happened. Even when recission seems impractical – for example, if the seller cannot afford to refund the purchase price – the courts may still enforce it. The buyers were granted a lien to cover their compensation, illustrating how serious the consequences of misrepresentation can be.

How Sellers Can Protect Themselves

If you’re selling a property, these tips can help you avoid legal pitfalls and preserve your peace of mind:

• Be Transparent: Disclose any known issues with your property, even if they seem minor. Honesty will earn buyer trust and reduce risk.
• Consult Professionals: Don’t rely on your judgment alone. If you are unsure how to answer a pre contract question, discuss it with your solicitor.
• Review Reports Thoroughly: If inspectors or pest controllers have flagged problems, don’t assume they won’t surface during the sale. Proactively addressing these issues can prevent disputes.
• Document Everything: Keep clear records of all communications, disclosures, and actions taken to resolve issues.
• Consider Declining to Respond: If you are unable or unwilling to provide a complete answer, it may be better to decline to respond entirely. However, weigh the pros and cons, as this could jeopardise the sale.

Final Thoughts

The Patarkatsishvili v Woodward-Fisher case is a cautionary tale for property sellers. Failing to address adverse aspects of your home, or worse, actively concealing them, can result in financial and legal turmoil. Transparent communication is not just a courtesy – it’s a legal safeguard.

Before putting your property on the market, arm yourself with knowledge, hire the right professionals, and prioritise transparency. By doing so, you will not only avoid the courtroom but also foster trust with potential buyers, making the sale process smoother and more successful for all parties involved.