Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Sukhninder Panesar of Buckinghamshire New University analyses Reid-Roberts v Mei Lin, where a wife argued that WhatsApp messages and emails showed her former husband had surrendered his beneficial interest in the family home.
The court disagreed, finding the communications failed to satisfy the formal requirements of the Law of Property Act 1925. Messages suggesting ‘I can sign over my share’ were treated as part of divorce negotiations rather than an immediate disposition of property rights.
Crucially, the court held that the mere appearance of an email address or WhatsApp profile was insufficient to amount to a legally effective signature. Panesar notes that while courts increasingly recognise the legal significance of electronic communications, enforceability still depends on clear intention and proper authentication.
