Property disputes: Be careful what you say in emails

A recent High Court case which saw siblings at loggerheads over a property portfolio established by their late father shows how influential emails can be when it comes to resolving certain disputes.

Emails can, a judge has ruled, be sufficient evidence of parties’ intentions when it comes to the true ownership of a property.

Deputy High Court Judge Saira Salimi handed down her judgement in the case of Khan and others v Khan in October 2024 which found that an email sent by Muhammed Khan to his family members showed that he held the property on trust for his siblings.

This case illustrates how easy it is to send an email to someone in the heat of the moment, when emotions are high, without realising the consequences it might have later.

With Court now treating an email sign-off as equivalent to a signature, it can only be a matter of time before it is asked to consider whether other forms of written communication, such as text and WhatsApp messages, are to be treated in the same way.

• Seeking legal advice from specialist solicitors before setting anything out in writing is vital. Contact our Property Disputes Team for more information.

What happened in this sibling property dispute case?

The case involved a number of properties which were initially purchased by Mr Abdul Khan and his wife, Mrs Fatima Khan.

The couple had six children and over the years, for various reasons, the properties were transferred into the sole names of some of their children.

Three of the properties were converted into flats and at the time of the hearing, the leaseholds for the flats were registered in the sole name of Mr and Mrs Khan’s son, Muhammed, with the freehold being held by their other son, Ahmed. The fourth property was held in Muhammed’s sole name and he ran his business from this premises.

Abdul Khan died in May 2008 leaving no will.

The proceedings were brought by five of Mr and Mrs Khan’s children (“the Claimants”) against Muhammed. They claimed that it had always been Abdul’s intention that the properties should be shared between all six of the children. Muhammed claimed that his father had always intended that he would be the sole owner of the properties, being the eldest son, and that his siblings had no interest in the properties.

Why was an email so crucial in this property dispute?

One vital piece of evidence the Claimants relied on in relation to one of the properties (7, Essex Grove) was an email which Muhammed sent to his sister, Shalima, and other family members in 2013, which stated:

‘I want Essex Grove out of my name by 2014. This belongs to three sisters as stated clearly.

I never wanted this property in my NAME....You are not even grateful to the fact that between myself and Ahmed We have maintained, argued with neighbours, improved, fought against tenants, blood, sweat and tears, cleaned toilets. So you guys have a block of flats that have at least 40-50% equity not to mention a valuable home should you need it.’

It was argued on behalf of the Claimants that the email constituted an “express declaration of trust”. Although 7, Essex Grove was registered in Muhammed’s name, it was held on trust for his three sisters and they were therefore the beneficial owners. Muhammed could not explain the email in cross-examination.

What does the law say on this type of property dispute?

Under the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925), in order to create an express trust of land, this must be “manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust or by his will”.

It has already been established by the case of Hudson v Hathway that an email with the writer’s name typed at the end is sufficient to be treated as a ‘signed’ written document.

However, Hudson v Hathway, concerned a property that was registered in the joint names of a couple who later separated and the email in question concerned Mr Hudson stating that he no longer wanted his interest in the property.

In the present case, the Judge was asked whether an email could be sufficient to create a declaration of trust. Therefore, it was a question of whether an email could be relied on to assert an interest in a property, rather than dispose of an interest.

What did the judge decide in this property dispute case?

The Judge found in favour of the Claimants. She held that as the email identified the property, the beneficiaries (the three sisters) and the trustee (Muhammed), the required section of LPA 1925 had been met. An order was made granting the sale of the property and the proceeds were to be split between the three sisters.

The Judge also found in favour of the Claimants in respect of the other properties which the sons asserted an interest in (for other reasons which this article does not address) and ordered the sale of those properties.

Get in touch

Wards Solicitors is recommended in the Independent Legal 500 guide for 2025 for its outstanding professional service standards and high levels of expertise amongst its lawyers.

Our specialist solicitors, Chloe King and Rebecca Max, can assist in disputes concerning the ownership of property, whether registered in joint names or one person’s sole name.

Contact them to arrange a free 30 minute, no obligation initial consultation.

Email: chloe.king@wards.uk.com       Phone: 0117 929 2811

Email: rebecca.max@wards.uk.com    Phone: 01454 204880