McGhee alleged the moth infestation was “well known” to the property developer before he sold it in 2019, claiming it had caused great disruption to 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 big “spray.”

“The fact that he was willing to tolerate this level of disturbance further belies Mr Woodward-Fisher’s claims that he had not been concerned by the level of moth activity,” Mr McGhee added.

In May 2018, Woodward-Fisher and her family decided to sell after “four highly disturbing sprays of the property.”

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

They want money back from their £32.5m purchase, plus compensation for other losses, including £50,000 for clothes destroyed by moths and more than £3.7m they paid in stamp duty.

Compensation estimate ‘fantastically high’

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

In contesting the compensation claim, his lawyer Jonathan Seitler said his client “cannot afford to buy back the property” and also alleged that the couple have “neglected” the house.

Seitler said his client’s wife, Kerry, had been “bothered by clothes moths” in 2018, and he recruited pest controllers to fix the problem and “appeared to have been successful in their task in July 2018.”

After this, she said the moths were no longer a problem and Patarkatsishvili and her husband did not see any on their visits.

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

The court heard that Dr Hunyak and his relatives had gone to great lengths to test the property before proceeding with the purchase, although much of their concern centered on potential noise disturbance from a nearby pub and the tube line.

Criticizing the huge valuation of the compensation offer, the lawyer told the judge: “Something must have gone wrong with the plaintiffs’ calculation of the alleged losses.”

“That figure is not reached even in the case of the most serious permanent personal injuries,” he added.

The trial continues.