Caveat Emptor is a Latin phrase meaning “let the buyer beware” and is a principle that has been used for hundreds of years.
However, the recent case of Iya Patarkatsishvili and Yevhen Hunyak v William Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch), reported in a recent Law Society article, Buyer beware, found that the usual theory of caveat emptor did not apply.
Although buyers typically take responsibility for the risks involved in purchasing a property, the seller must not be reckless or make untrue statements.
The claimants purchased a luxury home for £32.5 million in May 2019. The seller, during the course of pre-contract enquiries, denied any vermin infestation, reports, or hidden defects. The buyers later discovered a severe moth infestation within the insulation an issue the seller had known about through professional reports dating back to 2018. These reports, and a series of warning emails, demonstrated that the seller was fully aware of the problem before the sale took place.
As a result, the claimants sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking rescission of the contract, a refund of the purchase price, damages and interest.
The court agreed, finding that the seller had misrepresented the condition of the property. The replies given to the buyers were not just inaccurate, they were knowingly false. The infestation was in parts of the property that were inaccessible during a routine inspection, meaning the buyers had no reasonable way of discovering the defect prior to completion.
Importantly, the court rejected the seller’s defence that caveat emptor should shield him from liability. While this doctrine does place a burden on buyers to conduct due diligence, it does not excuse dishonest or reckless conduct by a seller. By denying the existence of a known issue, the seller acted recklessly, if not deceitfully.
The buyers were awarded an estimated £4 million in out-of-pocket losses, including the destruction of personal belongings, SDLT and accrued interest, on top of the full return of their £32.5 million purchase price.
This case serves as a stark reminder that while caveat emptor remains a foundational principle in English property law, it is not a licence for sellers to withhold or distort the truth.
Where there is fraudulent misrepresentation, the law offers robust remedies to protect the innocent party. Sellers must therefore take great care in their responses to enquiries and should disclose any material facts that could affect a buyer’s decision.
For buyers, this judgment provides some comfort: even in high value transactions, if you’ve been misled, the courts are willing to step in and unwind the deal. Ultimately, honesty in property transactions is not just ethical, it’s legally essential.
Buying or selling property? Make sure you’re protected by speaking to our Residential Property team today for clear advice before issues arise. Get in touch today.
Services we offer
Services we offer relating to this post
