Oligarch’s daughter sues for £36million over Notting Hill moth plague

Mr McGhee claimed the moth infestation was “common knowledge” to the property developer before he sold it in 2019, claiming it had caused major distress for him and his family.

At one point, he said, Mr Woodward-Fisher’s family was forced to check into a hotel and leave their dog elsewhere to clear the way for a major “spray”.

“The fact that he was willing to tolerate this level of disruption further lends credence to Mr Woodward-Fisher’s claims that the level of moth activity had caused him no problems,” Mr McGhee added.

In May 2018, Mr Woodward-Fisher and his family decided to sell the property after “four very disruptive sprays”.

In their claim, Dr. Hunyak and his wife ask the judge to overturn the sale of the house based on an alleged “fraudulent misrepresentation.”

They want the return of their £32.5 million purchase money, plus compensation for other losses, including £50,000 for moth-shredded clothing and more than £3.7 million paid in stamp duty.

Compensation ‘fantastically high’

The couple claim it would cost around £9.6 million to remove the source of the moth infestation from the embedded wool insulation, but Mr Woodward-Fisher says that estimate is “fantastically high” and closer to £162,652.

His lawyer Jonathan Seitler disputed the damages claim, saying his client “cannot afford to buy back the property” and also claiming the couple had “neglected” the home.

Mr Seitler said his client’s wife, Kerry, had “suffered from clothes moths” in 2018, and called in pest controllers to resolve the problem and “appeared to have succeeded in their task in July 2018”.

After this, he said the moths were no longer a problem and that Mrs Patarkatsishvili and her husband had not seen any during their visits.

“Nor the numerous experts they sent to inspect the property for hours on February 21, 2019,” he added.

Dr. Hunyak and relatives had gone to great lengths to test the property before purchasing, the court heard, although much of their concern centered on potential noise pollution from a nearby pub and the Metro line.

The lawyer criticized the huge valuation of the compensation offer, telling the judge: “Something must have gone wrong with the claimants’ calculation of the alleged losses.”

“Even the most serious permanent injuries don’t even come close,” he added.

The process continues.