Can a WhatsApp Message Transfer an Interest in Land?

The Court in Reid-Roberts v Mei-Lin [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch) highlighted the importance of both the content of and intent behind messages exchanged in negotiations.

Facts

Hsiao Mei-Lin (“HML”) initiated divorce proceedings against Audun Gudmunson (“AG”) in 2017. They owned a house in London (“the Property”) where HML lived with their children. In late 2018, they exchanged a series of WhatsApp messages negotiating the divorce terms. AG sent the following messages “I suggest that the responsibility of taking care of the kids goes to u 100%, then I can sign over my share of [the Property] to u …Please let me know that u r happy with this and we can then close the financial part of the divorce this week."

HML responded seeking to finalise additional details regarding child support payments and suggested that the question of the Property’s ownership had been ‘agreed’. AG contended that no agreement had been reached. The financial relief element of the divorce was concluded by a court in March 2020.

However, AG was made bankrupt in February 2020 and the subsequent bankruptcy proceedings found that AG and HML still held the Property as beneficial owners in 50/50 shares and it was held that HML would have to vacate the Property in 2032 (when their children both reached 18) so that it could be sold to assist in recovering AG’s debts.

Relevant Issue

The trustees in bankruptcy of AG appealed, arguing that HML should have to deliver possession earlier. HML argued that the WhatsApp messages had transferred AG’s share in the Property to her making her the sole owner.

The Court had to consider whether the messages were in writing and signed as is required under section 53 the Law of Property Act 1925 to create an instrument ‘disposing’ of an interest in land (although the Act does not apply in Northern Ireland, the Statute of Frauds (Ireland) 1695 creates a very similar requirement in NI in respect of land contracts hence the judgment is relevant in NI).

Decision

The Court held that the messages did not transfer AG’s interest and they did not show the necessary intent on AG’s part to transfer his interest (The Court also moved the possession date to 2027).

It was agreed that a WhatsApp message, like an email, is something ‘in writing’ for the purposes of the legislation. So, the key question was whether the messages had been ‘signed’:

• HML had argued that, because AG’s name appeared at the top of the chat which contained the messages in question, he had ‘signed’ and validly transferred his interest.
• The creditors argued, and the Court agreed, that this was not signing. The header at the top of a WhatsApp chat operates in the same way as an email address of the sender appearing at the top of an email in that it merely provides a way to identify the sender. It is incidental to the message and not part of it; or in other words the name was already at the top of the chat and the messages were then added to it.
• Crucially, AG had not ‘signed off’ his messages in the way one might end a message by adding wording such as ‘Kind Regards, Joe Bloggs’ or via an automatic email footer containing the sender’s name and details. Had this been present, the Court may have found that AG had the necessary ‘intent’ to authenticate the content of the message which may have made it a valid way of transferring his interest.
• Also relevant in establishing the intent behind the messages were 2018 emails between HML and AG in which AG stated there was no agreement and any transfer of his interest was conditional on other factors.

Implications

In an age of increasing informality in communication, be that by email or WhatsApp, etc. this case highlights the importance of carefully considering the contents of any message exchanged with another party to a transaction, particularly in those that are or may become contentious.

As merely signing off an email or message may amount to the necessary authentication of its contents for the purposes of the legislation, it is critical that the contents of the message are carefully caveated where necessary and phrases like ‘subject to contract/lease’ could be a useful way to demonstrate the intent behind a message.

If you would like any further information or advice on the information mentioned within this article, please contact Dylan Toner from the Real Estate team.

*This information is for guidance purposes only and does not constitute, nor should be regarded as, a substitute for taking legal advice that is tailored to your circumstances.