Property disputes: You can’t sign over property in a WhatsApp message says judge
A series of pre-divorce WhatsApp messages from a husband to his wife agreeing to give her sole ownership of their jointly owned marital home do not meet the legal requirements for transferring property, the High Court has ruled.
Mr Justice Cawson, whilst acknowledging how widespread the use of WhatsApp has become, said the messages did not count in law as ‘in writing signed by the person’ and as a result, ordered the house to be vacated.
With Courts now treating an email sign-off as equivalent to a signature, this was seen as a test case to consider whether other forms of written communication, like text and WhatsApp messages, are to be treated in the same way.
In 2023, the Court of Appeal, looking at the case of unmarried couple Jayne Hathway and Lee Hudson, decided that an email signature was indeed enough for Lee to transfer his beneficial ownership in their home to his former partner.
What happened in this WhatsApp property dispute?
During their divorce negotiations in 2018, Auden Mar Gudmundsson sent a series of WhatsApp messages to his then wife, Hsiao Mei-Lin.
They read: "I suggest that the responsibility for 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.
"Please let me know that u r happy with this and we can then close the financial part of the divorce this week."
Ms Lin, who also claimed her ex-husband had repeated this offer in emails, said she was happy with this arrangement along with some monthly maintenance.
Their divorce was finalised in March 2020, when a judge ordered Mr Gudmundsson to give his 50% share of the family home to his ex-wife however, Mr Gudmundsson had been made bankrupt a week earlier.
What did the courts decide in this WhatsApp property dispute?
According to the Law of Property Act 1925, for the transfer of the beneficial interest in a property to be legally valid, it must be ‘in writing signed by the person’.
Ms Lin claimed that because the WhatsApp messages appeared under her husband’s name in her WhatsApp feed, they did indeed amount to signatures.
She also said that the emails from her former husband also satisfied this requirement pointing to the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Hathway and Hudson case to prove her point.
At a High Court hearing in 2024, with Ms Lin arguing that she was the outright owner of the house and that she had been an ‘innocent victim of her ex-husband’s bankruptcy’, the judge decided she owned just 50% of the property with the other half going into Mr Gudmundsson’s bankruptcy.
She appealed the court’s decision but at an appeal hearing in December 2025, Mr Justice Cawson ruled that the WhatsApp messages from Mr Gudmundsson did not amount to a signature for the purposes of the law.
This would have been the case, he said, "even if I had found that the WhatsApp messages were to be read as effecting a release or disposition of Mr Gudmundsson’s interest in the Property.
"This serves to reinforce my overall conclusion that there has been no such release or disposition given that I find it impossible to see how, taken alone, the relevant emails could have affected such a release or disposition…"
Ms Lin was ordered to sell the property and vacate it by 31 July 2027.
Get in touch
Wards Solicitors wins high praise in the 2026 edition of the independent Legal 500 guide of outstanding legal professionals for its exceptional professional service standards and high levels of technical expertise.
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