The High Court has revisited when electronic communications can validly transfer a beneficial interest in real property. In Reid‑Roberts v Mei‑Lin [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch), WhatsApp messages between co‑owners of a home were not enough to release one party’s share. The messages did not show a clear intention to transfer the beneficial interest immediately, and they were not “signed” for the purposes of s53(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925).
Note that the requirements of s53(1) of the LPA 1925 relate to the requirements for transfers of land and of beneficial interests, as opposed to the requirements for contracts for dispositions in land, that are set out in s2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
Facts
This case involved co-owners of a property in London who were going through a divorce. During divorce discussions, in which both were legally represented, they exchanged WhatsApp messages in which the husband suggested that he would “sign over” his share of the property. The wife later proposed by email that the husband “finish the paperwork”, to which he replied that the terms were “not agreed.” The wife argued that this WhatsApp and email exchange had transferred his beneficial interest to her. The court had to decide whether the communications satisfied s53(1)(c) LPA 1925, which requires a disposition of an equitable interest to be in writing and signed by the disposer.
Decision
Looking at the messages objectively and in their context, the court found they did not show an unequivocal intention by the husband to divest himself of the interest there and then. On the contrary, they indicated an intention for a future disposition. The wife’s argument that the exchange itself completed the transfer therefore failed.
The court accepted that WhatsApp messages are “writing”, but held that the name displayed in the chat header is not a signature – it is an incidental platform label and does not authenticate the contents of the message for the purposes of s53(1).
The judge accepted that, technically, an instant message could satisfy s53(1) if it contains: (i) unequivocal wording that the transfer takes effect immediately; and (ii) a signature within the message text (e.g. a deliberate name or initial added to authenticate the message).
Practical points
- Keep discussions and agreements around transfer of ownership off chat platforms.
- When discussing transactions in writing, including by email, label them “subject to contract” and avoid using any words that might show an intention to create a legally binding agreement.
- Know what counts as a signature. A deliberately typed name at the end of a message can amount to a signature - courts will look for an intentional sign‑off within the message text.
