Can WhatsApp Messages Create Binding Divorce Agreements?

Lisa Pepper

Can WhatsApp messages between divorcing parties amount to a binding agreement?

It’s not unusual for divorcing couples to discuss financial matters via WhatsApp and other digital communications when attempting to agree a settlement.

But there is a risk that one party may wrongly assume an agreement has been reached and insist the other party sticks to their side of the bargain. In these types of dispute, the courts look for evidence of what’s known as a Xydhias agreement before finding the parties reached a legally binding agreement.

A legally binding Xydhias agreement arises where the parties have agreed the terms of a financial settlement in principle in the course of proceedings. To learn more about Xydhias agreements, read our dedicated article. 

In a 2026 reported case, one of the parties relied on WhatsApp and email messages to argue that there was a binding agreement. The case is particularly important for any divorcing parties directly negotiating with each other – whether or not lawyers are involved.

What’s the background?

The ruling in Reid-Roberts & Anor v Mei-Lin & Anor [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch) was the latest in lengthy and complex court proceedings and arose out of the post-separation bankruptcy of the husband, Mr Gudmundsson. It was a matter heard in the High Court’s Business and Property Courts (rather than the Family Court) because it concerned bankruptcy.

The wife, Ms Reid-Roberts, had earlier been ordered to give vacant possession of the former matrimonial home by 2032 following the judge’s finding that the parties owned it in equal shares. Mr Gudmundson’s trustee in bankruptcy appealed, while Ms Reid-Roberts brought a cross appeal.

She argued that Mr Gudmundson had transferred his share in the property to her before his bankruptcy, relying on their WhatsApp messages. A key issue was whether the WhatsApp messages amounted to “signed writing” for the purposes of a disposition of an interest of land under s53(1) of the Law of Property Act.

At first instance, the judge found that the WhatsApp messages showed Mr Gudmundson had intended to transfer his interest to her; and the identification of him in the message header was sufficient to amount to ‘signed writing’ on the basis of earlier case law (in particular Hudson v Hathway [2023] KB 345).

However, the judge did not go as far as to find a binding Xydhias agreement as the financial remedy proceedings on divorce were still ongoing.

No Xydhias agreement

The High Court has overruled the judge’s decision concerning the WhatsApp messages. The digital messages were part of the parties’ informal attempt to settle proceedings. However, neither party believed a settlement had actually been reached, as the language used indicated coming to a future agreement. They had not even appeared to have informed their respective lawyers about their communications.

The appeal judge disagreed with the conclusion that identifying a party in WhatsApp messages was equivalent to a “signature.” In reality, this was no more than an identification of the sender and was incidental to the message.

The court held that this was equivalent to an email address appearing on an email: it simply provided a mechanism, created by the service provider, to identify the sender of the message.

The judgment set out the exchanges between the parties:

WhatsApp Messages 02.12.18

Mr Gudmundsson: “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.”

Mr Gudmundsson: “Please let me know that u r happy with this and we can then close the financial part of the divorce this week.”

WhatsApp Messages 03.12.18

Ms Lin: “with some monthly maintenance then ok.”

Mr Gudmundsson: “It goes without saying the monthly maintenance for the kids in accordance with CMS.”

Ms Lin: “Are you saying I have full custody of kids?”

Mr Gudmundsson: “Yes that is what I was saying, moving out of London for good and out of the kids life.”

Ms Lin: “I will take house and full custody of kids. And my paintings [in] Iceland should be returned then is done.”

Emails 03.12.18

Ms Lin:

“Dear adudun

I will have full custody of kids and take the house.

This week we shall finish the paperwork.

According to what we agreed.

You are welcome to visit kids and I will never stop you seeing them. Just to let you know.

Please email your lawyer and me the confirmation of the arrangements ASAP. So I can tell my lawyer this has been agreed to proceed ASAP.

Kind regards Hsiaomei”

Mr Gudmundsson:

“Hsiaomei, For avoidance of doubt this is not agreed.

I sent this in relation to your “offer” that I could use a bedroom in southcote when I have the children. I sent you a simple question regarding that offer 4 days ago which I have not had any response to although I have sent a reminders. I wanted to understand whether you were making a genuine offer or if this was just a smoke screen.

The email below confirms that this battle of yours has very little to do with the welfare of our children and it saddens me tremendously.

All the best,

Audun Már Gudmundsson”

Ms Lin:

“Hi Audun

Clearly in you offer there is nothing mention about the room. I have accepted your offer and you should honour your word.

I did not ask any extra maintenance or Lum sum is just a clean cut want to make peace with you and move on life with kids.

I am happy you visit kids and will never stop you see them .and kids can have holiday in Iceland.

And my reply to your offer is – yes I will take this offer have the house and have kids

100%

Kind regards

Hsaio Mei”

Mr Gudmundsson:

“Hi Hsiaomei

Why don’t you just keep the house in London and the kids move with me to Iceland. You can visit them as much as you as want going forward.

It’s your call whether you want to spend more time on trying to agree on solution or not. All the best,

Audun Mar Gudmundsson”

What does this court decision mean?

The judge emphasised that it’s “technically possible” for a WhatsApp message to have the required dispositive intent and satisfy the requirements of s53(1). But to amount to a legally binding signature, there has to be “something more”, like the actual approval to something within the body of the message. In this case, nothing like that was found in the parties’ WhatsApp messages.

Even then, the court will need to be satisfied in the particular circumstances that both parties believed a Xydhias agreement or settlement had been reached.

However, it is still an important reminder for divorcing parties to be cautious when conducting informal, direct negotiations using digital communications such as texts, WhatsApp and emails. If the parties believe they have reached an agreement, it is prudent to make this clear in the digital communications and to notify any solicitors acting on their behalf.

How we can help

This decision highlights the importance of exercising caution when negotiating financial arrangements during divorce, particularly through text messages. What may appear to be an informal discussion can have unexpected legal consequences, making it essential to obtain specialist advice before relying on or committing to any proposed agreement. If you are separating and need advice on reaching a financial settlement, contact the Divorce team at Osbornes Law for expert guidance tailored to your circumstances. You can contact us by:

• completing our online enquiry form;
• or calling us on 020 7485 8811