Doomed Notting Hill mansion returned to market months after £33 million moth refund

A west London mansion at the centre of a high-profile legal dispute is being prepared for resale months after its recent buyers won a reported £33 million refund, according to media reports.

High-end property developer William Woodward-Fisher was ordered by the High Court earlier this year to take the Notting Hill home back after the purchasers, Iya Patarkatsishvili and Dr. Yevhen Hunyak, successfully sued over a persistent moth infestation they said had ruined clothes, spoiled wine and forced them to install hundreds of traps. The couple told the court the problem recalled scenes from the science-fiction film Alien.

New exterior photographs published by the Daily Mail show work to the property under way, with builders moving in and out, black sheets covering windows and audible renovation activity on the street. A worker from a company identified as Sitek Joinery told reporters the house would be put back on the market once his team finished its work.

The dispute that led to the refund centred on the extent of the infestation and the seller's disclosure obligations. The buyers argued the moth problem had been neither disclosed nor adequately addressed before completion; the court found in their favour, resulting in the reclaiming of the property and the multi-million-pound refund.

Mr. Woodward-Fisher, who has been described in reports as a former Team GB rower and a property developer, regained possession after the legal ruling. The decision and the scale of the reported refund drew attention because such large reversals and refund amounts are rare in central London residential sales.

Neighbours and local observers expressed scepticism about the prospects for a successful resale. Some residents told media outlets they doubted a buyer could be found quickly for a house with a widely publicised pest history, while others noted the visible renovation work and coverings at the property.

The case attracted attention beyond typical property disputes because of its unusual cause and the sums involved. The buyers told the court they had used about 400 traps and that the infestation had affected personal property and wine stored in the home. The seller disputed aspects of their claims during the court proceedings, but ultimately the judgment obliged the return of the house to the seller and the repayment to the buyers.

Relisting a property after a public legal controversy can present marketing and valuation challenges, particularly in the luxury segment of central London where reputation and privacy are key factors for purchasers. Real estate agents and market analysts generally say that transparent remediation and independent certification of any pest or structural issues are important to restore buyer confidence, though it is unclear what formal steps are being taken to demonstrate eradication in this case.

The owner has not publicly announced a list price for the upcoming sale. It is also unclear whether the property will be marketed through the same channels used for its previous disposal. Further details about the extent of the renovation work and any pest-remediation certification were not available at the time of publication.