Those with experience purchasing property will likely be aware of pre-contract enquires. This is the investigative stage of the conveyancing process that allows buyers to thoroughly check everything about the property and clarify any questions they may have. It is a routine part of the process that rarely reveals anything too damning, with some purchasers sometimes asking to bypass the step altogether.

However, a recent case has brought to light why pre-contract enquires are so essential.

The case

On 10 March 2025, a High Court judge handed down a judgement that allowed a buyer to terminate their contract to purchase a £32.5 million house in Iya Patarkatsishvili and Yehven Hunyak v William Woodward-Fisher.

The Claimants in this case were Iya Patarkatsishvili and Yevhen Hunyak, the buyers who successfully sued the seller of the property, William Woodward-Fisher (“Defendant”).

The property in question was renovated in 2012, when the Defendant decided to install wool insulation. Unfortunately, this created a breeding ground for moths and by 2018, the mansion was infested. The Defendant and his wife were aware of the infestation as they had previously engaged specialists on the issue. These specialists then prepared reports with courses of actions on how to rid of the property of infestation. The Defendant claimed otherwise, however, when responding to three pre-contract enquiries, specifically concerning infestations. The Defendant claimed he was not aware of any issues and that there had been no reports associated with this issue that needed to be disclosed.

The Claimants claim they discovered the moth infestation within a few days of moving in and in September2020, concluded that the Defendant’s responses to the pre-contract enquiries must have been false. The buyers issued a claim against the seller for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The outcome

The judge found that the Defendant did not honestly believe his replies to two out of the three enquires were truthful. Further, the judge found him to be reckless with the truth in his third reply. As the Claimants were relying on the pre-contract replies, they argued that they were put at a disadvantage by the Defendant’s disregard for the truth. From this, the Claimants successfully established fraudulent misrepresentation.

Typically, the recourse for fraudulent misrepresentation is damages but, on this occasion, the Judge ordered that the contract be rescinded in an attempt to put both parties in the position they were prior to the purchase.

In response, the Defendant argued that he was not in a financial position to purchase the property back from the Claimants. Whilst the Judge did allow for a reduction in the value of the house to mirror the Claimants’ use, the judgement ultimately ordered that the Claimants would return ownership to the Defendant. The property has been returned with a lien, which is a charge over the property until the Defendant repays the Claimants the purchase price.  

Conclusion

Although this was an extreme case, it highlights the importance of pre-contract enquiries. Without these enquiries, the Claimants would not have been able to sue for misrepresentation. A key takeaway of this case is that sellers who choose to answer pre-contract enquiries must do so honestly, and buyers must review these answers properly and raise further questions if needed. While sellers have the option not to answer the enquiries, refusing to answer can itself be seen as a response, and buyers may decide whether to proceed with the purchase if uncertainties about the property remain.

‍