Are WhatsApp messages sufficient to transfer an interest in property?

The High Court recently considered whether a series of emails of WhatsApp messages were sufficient to transfer an interest in the property. On the particular facts they concluded that in this case, the Defendant had not demonstrated a clear intent in the messages to dispose of his interest in the property (Reid-Roberts and Burke as Joint Trustees in Bankruptcy of Gudmundsson v. Mei-Lin and Another [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch))

As part of its decision, the Court considered an earlier case of Hudson v. Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648 where the Court of Appeal held that a beneficial interest in a property had been transferred by a series of emails signed off by a typed name. For more on that decision, see our Quick Read: Typed name is sufficient to transfer interest in property.

Mr Gudmundsson and Ms Lin married in 2009 and jointly owned a property in London (also purchased in 2009). The beneficial ownership was held 50% each. They separated and divorce proceedings commenced in 2017. Subsequently, Mr Gudmundsson had been made bankrupt and Ms Lin was ordered to move out by his Trustee in Bankruptcy. At the time, Ms Lin resided in the property with their two children

Ms Lin, argued that Mr Gudmundsson had transferred his 50% beneficial interest in the property to her in the course of a WhatsApp and email exchange, so that Ms Lin was the only beneficial owner of the property at the time of Mr Gudmundsson’s bankruptcy. 

The chain of correspondence included a message where Mr Gudmundsson stated “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 without any complications as I don't need any accommodation in London."

The High Court, however, found that the messages did not amount to a transfer of Mr Gudmundsson’s interest in the property because:

• The parties had undertaken formal divorce proceedings with Solicitors who would ordinarily be involved with any dispositions of property whereas in Hudson v. Hathway no Solicitors were involved.

• The use of WhatsApp at the start of the discussions did not suggest any intention to transfer the beneficial interest in the property and neither did the language used in the messages.

• The Court concluded that the evidence fell “well short of supporting a finding” that Mr Gudmundsson had shown an intention to transfer his beneficial interest in the property. Therefore, they did not need to consider whether the WhatsApp messages were sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements for a valid transfer of land (i.e. that a disposition must be in writing and signed). The messages contained no signature, and the WhatsApp heading was incidental to the messages rather than an integral part of them. 

Parties should nevertheless ensure they truly mean what they say in their correspondence and use appropriate language if a formal contract is to be entered into before a transfer made.

Please contact Emma Preece, Laura Bushaway or your usual Charles Russell Speechlys contact if you have any queries.