Are WhatsApp messages automatically signed?

Mr Gudmunson (G) and Ms Mei-Lin (M) married in 2009. They bought a family home together, which they held as joint tenants. However, the marriage broke down, and M sought a divorce in 2017.

During the divorce proceedings, the parties negotiated over the house. In one WhatsApp message, G “suggested” that if M cared for the children “then I can sign over my share of [the house] to u without any complications”. Later on, by email, he wrote “why don’t you just keep”  the house.

A convoluted factual and procedural history resulted in M appealing to the High Court, where she argued that these messages conveyed G’s interest in the house to her. Any disposition of a beneficial interest in property has to comply with s53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925, which requires it to be “in writing signed” by the person disposing of that interest (or their agent). M therefore had to prove that the WhatsApp messages were in writing signed by G for the disposition to be valid.

M’s argument was based on the premise the WhatsApp messages amounted to signed writing. Whilst G had not written out his name, they appeared on her phone under a header bearing his name. G knew they would appear under this header. This showed an intention to authenticate the messages: this was sufficient for the writing to be ‘signed’ for the purposes of s53(1)(c).

To support this argument, M relied on the case of WS Tankship II BV v Kwangju Bank Ltd [2011] EWHC 3103, where a secure messaging service automatically included the bank’s name in the header of the message. Although the bank had not typed the name itself, it had nonetheless “caused [the name] to be there by sending the message”. This amounted to a signature.

However, the Appellate Court considered that the WhatsApp messages were not analogous. Firstly, G had not ‘caused’ the messages to appear under that heading; rather, the heading already existed on M’s phone before the messages were sent. Secondly, WS Tankship could be distinguished. There, the name was associated with the specific message. However, here, the name was associated with all G’s messages generally, rather than the specific messages which allegedly transferred the house. No individual message could be said to be ‘signed’.

The WhatsApp messages were not therefore “in writing signed” by G as required by s53(1)(c), and therefore incapable of conveying G’s interest in the property to M. M’s appeal was therefore unsuccessful.

Trustees in Bankruptcy of Audun Gudmunsson v Hsiao Mei-Lin and Audun Gudmunsson [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch) judgment

23rd Feb 2026

Jack Sheard

Call Pupil