Billionaire’s Daughter Sues Over £36m 'Moth-Infested' Notting Hill Mansion: Legal Battle Shakes Luxury Property Market

A high-profile legal battle unfolding in the High Court has cast an unexpected spotlight on the hidden hazards of even the most luxurious real estate. The dispute centres on a £32.5 million Notting Hill mansion that allegedly turned out to be "infested with millions of moths", prompting its new owners—a billionaire heiress and her husband—to sue for over £36 million in damages.

A Mansion Fit for Royalty, Until the Moths Arrived

In May 2019, Iya Patarkatsishvili, daughter of the late Georgian oligarch Badri Patarkatsishvili, and her husband, Dr Yevhen Hunyak, a paediatric dentist practising in Chelsea, purchased a grand early Victorian mansion in one of London’s most elite neighbourhoods. The seven-bedroom home boasted not only the standard trappings of high-end real estate—such as a swimming pool, spa, and gym—but also a cinema, a wine room, a library, and even a “snoring room,” reportedly designed for undisturbed sleep.

But the couple claims that shortly after they moved in, their dream home descended into a nightmare.

According to court documents, the family began to notice a persistent infestation of moths that not only ruined their clothes and wine collection but intruded into their daily lives to the point where moths were landing on toothbrushes, cutlery, and even plates of food. Hunyak described having to discard glasses of wine that contained floating insects. At the peak of the infestation, the family said they were swatting over 100 moths a day, and even after repeated pest control interventions, they still find up to 35 moths daily.

The couple believes the root cause lies in the wool-based insulation concealed behind the home’s walls and ceilings—an environment particularly favourable for moth breeding.

£36 Million Lawsuit: Fraud or a Misunderstanding?

The defendants in the case are William Woodward-Fisher, 68, a former Team GB rower and seasoned property developer, and his wife Kerry, 64, an interior designer. The Woodward-Fishers had extensively remodelled and lived in the property for years before selling it to the Patarkatsishvili-Hunyak family.

The plaintiffs, represented by barrister John McGhee KC, argue that Woodward-Fisher either knew of the infestation and failed to disclose it or was negligent in providing incomplete information during the pre-sale inquiries—particularly the section dealing with vermin. The couple alleges that the infestation was so significant that it had previously driven the Woodward-Fishers to temporarily move out and book a hotel to allow for professional fumigation.

They seek more than £36 million in total compensation, which includes:

• A full reversal of the sale and return of the £32.5 million purchase price
   
• £3.7 million in stamp duty
   
• £50,000 in damage to personal property, including clothes
   
• Costs associated with replacing the wool insulation, which they estimate at £10 million
   

Alternatively, the couple has presented fallback claims: over £16 million to reflect the reduced value of the property due to the infestation, or about £13 million for repair works and other losses.

Woodward-Fisher’s Defence: “Moths Aren’t Vermin”

Woodward-Fisher denies all allegations, asserting that he provided full and honest answers during the sale process. His legal representative, Jonathan Seitler KC, argued that moths do not legally qualify as vermin, and therefore, their presence did not need to be disclosed in the standard inquiry forms.

He further contended that while there had indeed been an issue with moths in 2018, professional pest controllers had resolved the matter by July of that year—well before the 2019 sale. As far as Woodward-Fisher was aware, the issue had been dealt with and did not pose a problem when the couple moved in.

Moreover, he disputes the couple’s estimated remediation costs, suggesting a much lower repair bill of £162,652—casting doubt on the plaintiffs’ figures as exaggerated and excessive.

Legal Grey Area: Are Moths "Vermin"?

One of the most intriguing legal aspects of the case revolves around the classification of moths. While the standard property pre-sale inquiry forms ask sellers to declare any history of vermin infestation, the legal definition of "vermin" is not always straightforward.

In the UK, vermin typically includes pests such as rats, mice, and cockroaches—creatures that can transmit disease and cause structural damage. Moths, particularly the species that feed on wool and textiles, are less likely to be deemed vermin in a strict legal sense, though their economic impact can be severe.

This grey area could become a decisive factor in the trial. If the court finds that moths should have been disclosed under the category of "vermin," Woodward-Fisher could be found liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation.

A Wider Impact on Luxury Real Estate?

This case has rippled through London’s ultra-luxury property market, where buyers and sellers often assume that premium price tags and high-end fittings guarantee flawlessness. The idea that a £32.5 million mansion could hide such a costly and persistent problem is unsettling for both prospective buyers and developers.

It also raises important questions for conveyancers and real estate professionals: Should inquiry forms be updated to include more detailed pest history? Are standard definitions sufficient for transactions involving properties of such scale and complexity?

Moreover, this dispute might encourage future buyers to conduct more invasive inspections, including checking behind walls and insulation—a challenging task in heritage or architecturally sensitive properties.

What's Next?

The trial remains ongoing, and Mr Justice Fancourt has indicated that he will reserve judgment until a later date. The outcome could set a significant precedent, not just in terms of buyer protections and disclosure obligations, but also in how pest infestations are understood and dealt with in property law.

If the court sides with Patarkatsishvili and Hunyak, it could open the door for broader interpretations of seller liability, especially where non-disclosure leads to substantial financial and personal hardship. Alternatively, a decision in favour of Woodward-Fisher might reaffirm the boundaries of legal responsibility and reinforce the need for buyers to exercise due diligence—regardless of a property’s luxury status.

Either way, this case marks a dramatic reminder that even a palace can come with hidden problems—and in the world of real estate, what you don’t see can cost you millions.

Need Help with a Property Dispute?

Whether you're dealing with boundary issues, breach of contract, or nuisance claims, our experienced property litigation solicitors are here to protect your rights and resolve conflicts efficiently.

Get expert legal advice today —Contact Parachute Law for a free initial consultation.