In a world where it is much more common to send someone a text, a WhatsApp message, email or other electronic communication, than type a letter or put pen to paper, the Court does find itself now and again considering how the digital ways of communicating interact with laws that were introduced way before the concept of sending someone an instant message were even contemplated.

Although the case of Reid-Roberts v Mei-Lin [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch) considered WhatsApp messages in the context of personal insolvency, the decision is of wider interest to insolvency practitioners (IPs) as a reminder that more casual ways of communicating could have legal consequences – both for them and when considering the asset position on an insolvency. 

In the Reid-Roberts case Judge Cawson was concerned with whether there had been a disposition of Mr Gudmundsson interest in property owned jointly with his former wife, prior to his bankruptcy, such that his trustee in bankruptcy had no interest in that property.

There were various exchanges of emails but also WhatsApp messages between the two parties where they clearly discussed Mr Gudmundsson giving his interest to his wife, such as (via Whatsapp) “I suggest that the responsibility of taking care of the kids goes to u 100%, then I can sign over my share of southcote road to u without any complications as I don’t need any accommodation in London.”  But, on the facts of this case, the Judge concluded that there was no immediate intention by Mr Gudmundsson to dispose of his interest, it was a future intention and therefore ruled out that there had been a disposition.  However, what Judge Cawson did not rule out, was the possibility that there could be a disposition of property by WhatsApp if the requirements of section 53(1) Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) were met.

Section 53(1) requires a disposition of property to be in writing and signed by the person disposing of the property. Previous cases such as Hudon v Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648 have considered communications in email, where phrases such as “I’ve no interest whatsoever in the house” showed an immediate intention to divest the property interest and, on the facts of the Hudson case there was a disposition because the emails were signed off.

To satisfy the signature requirement it is necessary for the name to be applied to the whole document, and not just incidentally.   It is perhaps more usual to sign off an email, or apply a signature to an email, than to sign off a WhatsApp message.  In this case, Judge Cawson found that even if there was an intention by Mr Gudmundsson to divest himself of his interest in the property, the WhatsApp messages would not have met the signature requirements because his name appeared at the top of the messages and was therefore incidental rather than an integral part of them – but did not rule out that a WhatsApp message could meet the signature requirements.

There was some analogy by Judge Cawson in the case between an email address and the header on a WhatsApp message:

“I consider that the header within a WhatsApp “chat” identifying the sender is analogous to the email address that is added by the relevant service provider to the top of an email, utilising the sender’s email address which, in most cases, will be chosen by the sender albeit often utilising the email service provider’s domain name (e.g. xxxx@gmail.com). It is not, as I see it, part of the actual message itself, but merely provides a mechanism designed by the relevant service provider to allow the sender of the email or WhatsApp message to be identified. It is, I consider, therefore, properly to be regarded as incidental to the message itself, rather than as forming part thereof.”

Previous cases concerning emails have found that the signature requirements were met where someone had added their name to the bottom of an email or applied a signature.  In a similar way, it is therefore feasible for a WhatsApp message to be signed off and consequently for a WhatsApp conversation to meet the requirements for there to be a disposition of property.

This case was, as noted, only concerned with the requirements of the Law of Property Act but highlights that the ways of modern communication are important when considering the legal effect of those. 

We have previously shared this blog by our colleagues in our technology team explaining how a contract can be formed by exchange of WhatsApp message which is particularly pertinent if an IP were to enter into a contract via WhatsApp post appointment because this is likely to result in an expenses claim.

Furthermore, the case highlights the importance of reviewing WhatsApp and other forms of electronic communication when analysing what property (in the wider sense) a company has or may have had pre-appointment, has this been divested and could it potentially be challenged and recovered.

The decision is of course of particular interest to IPs dealing with personal insolvency where one of the primary assets is often the matrimonial home, and communications between the legal owners will be important in determining the claim that the trustee has to the property.