Did you miss? What’s in a ‘WhatsApp’? No disposition of a beneficial interest in Reid-Roberts v Mei-Lin [2026] EWHC 49 (CH)

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hudson v Hathway – in which Mr Hudson relinquished his beneficial interest in a co-owned property by email – I wondered if I should rethink my habit of signing off texts “Cxxx”.

In Reid-Roberts, Cawson J considered whether a WhatsApp message could effect a disposition of a beneficial interest. The decision is a welcome one that provides clarity on the boundaries of s.53(1)(c).

The Background

Ms Lin and her husband (H) were divorcing. H sent WhatsApp messages of the following flavour:

“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 …”

H was made bankrupt. The Trustees sought to realise his share. Ms Lin argued H had disposed of his beneficial interest under s.53(1)(c) LPA 1925, prior to the bankruptcy, via his WhatsApp and email messages.

The Decision

𝟭. No Immediate Disposition: The Court held that the messages were negotiations, not an immediate divestment of interest given the following:

• Unlike Hudson, divorce proceedings were on foot. This created an expectation that property dispositions would be finalised through the instructed solicitors.
• Whilst technically possible for a WhatsApp message to have disposing intent, the informal medium pointed against such an intention.
• H’s proposals were conditional upon child arrangements and were not standalone dispositions. The terminology used (such as “sign over,” “finish the paperwork”) also pointed to a future transaction.
• In contrast to Hudson – where the transferor had consistently disavowed his interest – H reneged on the proposal before any consensus was reached.

𝟮. The Signature:  The key considerations in establishing whether a document has been “signed” for the purposes of s.53(1)(c) are:
·   The application of the name to the whole of the relevant document; and
·   The requirement for an authorising intent.

These requirements were lacking. There was no authenticating intent on the basis that the heading – which applied to all messages not just those relied upon and which had not been caused to appear by H – was incidental to the messages rather than being an integral part thereof.

The Takeaway

Intent vs. Medium: Whilst technically possible to relinquish a beneficial interest via WhatsApp, the informal nature of the medium weighs against finding the necessary dispositive intent.
The Signature: Whilst the definition of a signature remains expansive (potentially including auto-signatures and headers if the sender knows the message system will apply them – see [87]-[100]), a platform-generated header that appears incidentally does not suffice.

Article by Charlotte John