An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought a seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in May 2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which are destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point, moths
landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes, cutlery and food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as moths were
floating in them.
On 13/11/2024 09:45, Simon Parker wrote:
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought
a seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in
May 2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which are
destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point, moths
landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes, cutlery
and food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as moths were
floating in them.
The judgment has now been issued and made public.
The failure of the seller to reveal the infestation of moths to the prospective buyer is deemed to be fraudulent and the judge goes on to
discuss the remedy that he will award.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Patarkatsishvili- and-another-v-Woodward-Fisher.pdf
On 10/02/2025 12:06, The Todal wrote:
On 13/11/2024 09:45, Simon Parker wrote:
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they
bought a seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for
£32.5m in May 2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which
are destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point,
moths landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes,
cutlery and food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as
moths were floating in them.
The judgment has now been issued and made public.
The failure of the seller to reveal the infestation of moths to the
prospective buyer is deemed to be fraudulent and the judge goes on to
discuss the remedy that he will award.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Patarkatsishvili-
and-another-v-Woodward-Fisher.pdf
Indeed. Nice to see the use of dictionaries which I said would be determinative, despite others' contrary views here.
On 13/11/2024 09:45, Simon Parker wrote:
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought a
seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in May
2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which are
destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point, moths
landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes, cutlery and
food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as moths were
floating in them.
The judgment has now been issued and made public.
The failure of the seller to reveal the infestation of moths to the prospective buyer is deemed to be fraudulent and the judge goes on to
discuss the remedy that he will award.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Patarkatsishvili-and-another-v-Woodward-Fisher.pdf
On 10/02/2025 13:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 12:06, The Todal wrote:
On 13/11/2024 09:45, Simon Parker wrote:
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they
bought a seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for
£32.5m in May 2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which
are destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point,
moths landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes,
cutlery and food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as
moths were floating in them.
The judgment has now been issued and made public.
The failure of the seller to reveal the infestation of moths to the
prospective buyer is deemed to be fraudulent and the judge goes on to
discuss the remedy that he will award.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Patarkatsishvili-
and-another-v-Woodward-Fisher.pdf
Indeed. Nice to see the use of dictionaries which I said would be
determinative, despite others' contrary views here.
The dictionary definitions were crucial as part of the decision - but
the defence was rather incoherent, with the seller claiming that he
wasn't aware of a major moth problem, that he never read the reports
that were supplied by the eradication specialists, that he didn't trust
the latter anyway, that he thought the problem had been cured by the
time the sale took place.
On 10/02/2025 13:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 12:06, The Todal wrote:
On 13/11/2024 09:45, Simon Parker wrote:
An interesting question before the high court as Iya
Patarkatsishvili and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher
from whom they bought a seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in
Notting Hill for £32.5m in May 2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which
are destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point,
moths landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes,
cutlery and food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as
moths were floating in them.
The judgment has now been issued and made public.
The failure of the seller to reveal the infestation of moths to the
prospective buyer is deemed to be fraudulent and the judge goes on to
discuss the remedy that he will award.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Patarkatsishvili-
and-another-v-Woodward-Fisher.pdf
Indeed. Nice to see the use of dictionaries which I said would be
determinative, despite others' contrary views here.
I can but commend paragraph [58] to you, particularly the second point
stated therein, which you clearly missed as it states the precise
opposite of what you are claiming.
To save several posts back and forth and you claiming it does not say
that which it clearly does, I give you the following text, quoted
verbatim, from the above cited paragraph:
"Second, the answer to whether the Reply was false is not to be found
solely in a selected dictionary, or based on a preponderance of
definitions in various dictionaries. This is no more than a starting
point, and context is everything."
I'm sure I've heard the words "Context is everything" before.
On 10/02/2025 19:11, Simon Parker wrote:
On 10/02/2025 13:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 12:06, The Todal wrote:
On 13/11/2024 09:45, Simon Parker wrote:
An interesting question before the high court as Iya
Patarkatsishvili and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher
from whom they bought a seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in
Notting Hill for £32.5m in May 2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which
are destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point,
moths landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes,
cutlery and food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as
moths were floating in them.
The judgment has now been issued and made public.
The failure of the seller to reveal the infestation of moths to the
prospective buyer is deemed to be fraudulent and the judge goes on
to discuss the remedy that he will award.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/
Patarkatsishvili- and-another-v-Woodward-Fisher.pdf
Indeed. Nice to see the use of dictionaries which I said would be
determinative, despite others' contrary views here.
I can but commend paragraph [58] to you, particularly the second point
stated therein, which you clearly missed as it states the precise
opposite of what you are claiming.
To save several posts back and forth and you claiming it does not say
that which it clearly does, I give you the following text, quoted
verbatim, from the above cited paragraph:
"Second, the answer to whether the Reply was false is not to be found
solely in a selected dictionary, or based on a preponderance of
definitions in various dictionaries. This is no more than a starting
point, and context is everything."
I'm sure I've heard the words "Context is everything" before.
I was however right yet again. Moths are vermin as I said much earlier
in answer to the question you asked in the thread heading because you
didn't know.
You may recall the exchange we had where I said:
"It's a matter of what the word means in ordinary English that matters,
and any number of dictionaries can and should be consulted for that
purpose.
"If you do that, you will find that any number of that any number specifically include insects in the term 'vermin'. Getting back to the original point, moths, being insects, fall within 'vermin' beyond any
shadow of doubt, and they have to be declared if any vermin have to be."
to which you totally dismissively replied:
"Oh look! A "Norman Bull".
It must be terribly galling for you to be so wrong.
On 10/02/2025 23:42, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 19:11, Simon Parker wrote:
On 10/02/2025 13:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/02/2025 12:06, The Todal wrote:
On 13/11/2024 09:45, Simon Parker wrote:
An interesting question before the high court as Iya
Patarkatsishvili and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher
from whom they bought a seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in
Notting Hill for £32.5m in May 2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of
moths, infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and
ceilings, which are destroying clothing, and ruining their wine
with, at one point, moths landing on the couple and their two
children's toothbrushes, cutlery and food, with glasses of wine
having to be tipped away as moths were floating in them.
The judgment has now been issued and made public.
The failure of the seller to reveal the infestation of moths to the
prospective buyer is deemed to be fraudulent and the judge goes on
to discuss the remedy that he will award.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/
Patarkatsishvili- and-another-v-Woodward-Fisher.pdf
Indeed. Nice to see the use of dictionaries which I said would be
determinative, despite others' contrary views here.
I can but commend paragraph [58] to you, particularly the second
point stated therein, which you clearly missed as it states the
precise opposite of what you are claiming.
To save several posts back and forth and you claiming it does not say
that which it clearly does, I give you the following text, quoted
verbatim, from the above cited paragraph:
"Second, the answer to whether the Reply was false is not to be found
solely in a selected dictionary, or based on a preponderance of
definitions in various dictionaries. This is no more than a starting
point, and context is everything."
I'm sure I've heard the words "Context is everything" before.
I was however right yet again. Moths are vermin as I said much
earlier in answer to the question you asked in the thread heading
because you didn't know.
You may recall the exchange we had where I said:
"It's a matter of what the word means in ordinary English that
matters, and any number of dictionaries can and should be consulted
for that purpose.
"If you do that, you will find that any number of that any number
specifically include insects in the term 'vermin'. Getting back to
the original point, moths, being insects, fall within 'vermin' beyond
any shadow of doubt, and they have to be declared if any vermin have
to be."
to which you totally dismissively replied:
"Oh look! A "Norman Bull".
It must be terribly galling for you to be so wrong.
He wasn't wrong at all. I interpret his words as "Norman now makes
edicts in the same way as the Pope issues Papal Bulls". A valid remark.
The judge was at pains to say that he isn't making new law or forcing
all sellers to confess to the presence of all insects in the house - as
you can see from his closing remarks. "Para 318: The final point is
that Mr Seitler argued at the outset and repeated in closing submissions
that it cannot be right that the presence of some moths had to be
disclosed by WWF, otherwise every seller of a property will have to
disclose the presence of moths, or otherwise be at risk of a claim for damages or rescission. That of course is not the position. There is no
duty of disclosure on a seller of real property (caveat emptor), except
to the extent that a failure to disclose would make information
otherwise given to a buyer misleading or incomplete"
In the case under discussion there were two relevant pre-contract
enquiries. One of them, 2.1, related to "vermin" among other issues. The other was a more general enquiry: "2.3 Is the seller aware of any
defects in the property which are not apparent on inspection (due to the presence of furniture, carpets, cupboards etc?)"
So the defendants were held to have answered both queries dishonestly
and the claimants would have won even if there had been no enquiry specifically mentioning "vermin".
On 13/11/2024 09:45, Simon Parker wrote:
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili and Dr Yevhen
Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought a seven-bedroom early
Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in May 2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths, infesting the wool
insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which are destroying clothing, and ruining
their wine with, at one point, moths landing on the couple and their two children's
toothbrushes, cutlery and food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as moths
were floating in them.
The judgment has now been issued and made public.
The failure of the seller to reveal the infestation of moths to the prospective buyer
is deemed to be fraudulent and the judge goes on to discuss the remedy that he will
award.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Patarkatsishvili-and-another-v-Woodward-Fisher.pdf
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:45:47 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |