header-logo header-logo

04 September 2019
Issue: 7854 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Commercial
printer mail-detail

E-signing is fine, say commissioners

Electronic signatures are a valid alternative to handwritten signatures, the Law Commission has confirmed.

In a report published this week, the commission explains why e-signatures are viable way to execute documents and deeds, including where there is a statutory requirement for a signature, and makes recommendations for reform to address issues surrounding their use.

The commission notes the flexibility of common law in recognising a range of types of signature, including an ‘X’, initials, a printed name and a description of the signatory such as ‘Your loving mother’. Moreover, the commission states, the courts have accepted e-signatures including name typed at the bottom of an email or clicking an ‘I accept’ tick box. These decisions supplement the EU eIDAS regulation, which states that e-signatures cannot be denied legal validity simply because they are electronic.

Stephen Lewis, Commercial and Common Law Commissioner, said: ‘Electronic signatures can offer quicker and easier transactions for businesses and consumers.

‘Our report aims to provide an accessible statement of the law.’

However, the commission also identifies concerns, including that e-signatures may be more susceptible to fraud, which could put vulnerable people at risk. There are also issues of reliability and security of the technology involved and the question of remote witnessing―the commission’s view is that the current law does not allow for remote witnessing via video link.

It recommends that an industry working group be set up to provide best practice guidance, including on video witnessing, followed by legislative reform. It calls for a future review of the law of deeds and points out that the government may wish to codify the law on e-signatures to make the law more accessible.

Issue: 7854 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll