A recent High Court decision serves as a stark reminder: informal messages can have very formal consequences — or in this case, fail to have them at all.
The Background
In Reid-Roberts & Anor v Mei-Lin & Anor, the High Court examined whether a string of WhatsApp messages and emails between a divorcing couple could amount to a valid transfer of the ex-husband’s 50% equitable share in a property to his ex-wife, who already held the other 50% equitable share.
Under section 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925, disposing of an equitable interest in land requires writing, signed by the person making the disposition. Simple enough — but what counts as “writing”? And what counts as a “signature”?
The High Court also considered if the WhatsApp messages and emails between the divorcing couple showed the necessary intent to transfer the ex-husband’s 50% equitable share in the property to his ex-wife.
The Decision
The court held that no valid transfer had taken place. Here is why:
On the emails: Emails can constitute writing, and signing off with your name can amount to a signature — the court accepted both. But the content of the emails pointed firmly towards future action, not an immediate transfer. That distinction proved fatal.
On the WhatsApp messages: The messages fell at an earlier hurdle. Although WhatsApp messages can constitute writing, the WhatsApp messages in this case had not been signed. The court drew on Neocleous v Rees, which established that even an automatically generated email signature can count — provided the sender knew about it and intended to authenticate the message. In this case, the WhatsApp messages hadn’t been signed; the ex-husband hadn’t concluded the messages with a typed sign-off of his name, and there was no intent by him to authenticate the content of the messages. In addition, the sender’s name appearing in the message header was found to be incidental, not a deliberate act of authentication. The headers in WhatsApp messages simply do not carry the same intent as an automatically generated email signature.
The clincher: The judge was clear that using WhatsApp as a medium pointed against an intention to transfer such a significant beneficial interest in a high-value property. The fact that there were ongoing divorce proceedings, in which solicitors would normally deal with any transfer of property, provided important context.
The Takeaway
Three practical points every client and solicitor should note:
- Mark correspondence “subject to contract.” This is especially important for emails, where an automatic signature could otherwise be read as an intention to sign and authenticate the content.
- Watch your sign-offs. Ending a WhatsApp message or text with your name could, in the right context, be treated as a signature — with real legal consequences.
- Context matters enormously. The informality of a medium like WhatsApp does not necessarily make a transaction impossible, but it raises a high bar. The more significant the transaction, the more formal the documentation needs to be.
The bottom line:
WhatsApp messages can, in principle, constitute writing – and a typed sign-off could constitute a signature. But the evidential bar is very high and the contextual factors will almost always tell against a valid property transfer. WhatsApp is not a conveyancing tool. Keep property dispositions off the messaging apps — and in the hands of your solicitor!
