ARTICLE
16 December 2019

(1) Mr Stavros Neocleous (2) Mrs Kalliroy Neocleous v Ms Christine Rees [2019] EWHC 2452 (Ch)

DP
DLA Piper UK LLP

Contributor

DLA Piper is dedicated to helping forward-thinking businesses address today’s challenges and shape a better world. With a bold and dynamic culture, it emphasizes excellence in client relationships, community service, and people development. The firm fosters creativity, strategic thinking, inclusivity, and collaboration to exceed expectations. Recognizing the importance of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues, the firm actively supports clients in transitioning to sustainable futures. It promotes purpose, transparency, and sustainability within its own governance and operations, ensuring its people are equipped to deliver exceptional results for clients while making a positive societal impact.

An exchange of emails satisfied the legal requirement for the sale of land to be in in writing and signed (section 2(1) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989).
United Kingdom Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

(BAILII entry available here)

An exchange of emails satisfied the legal requirement for the sale of land to be in in writing and signed (section 2(1) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989).

The claimant in this dispute sought specific performance of the sale of land. The agreement to sell had been reached in the context of another dispute and formed part of a compromise agreement documented by the exchange of solicitors emails. Seemingly, the defendant subsequently changed her mind. She sought to challenge the sale on the basis that the email exchange did not satisfy the legal technicalities for a land disposition which require the agreement to be in writing and signed.

The signatures on the relevant emails had been automatically applied, in the usual way. Was this significant when assessing whether or the emails had been “signed” ?

The court decided that it was not. The presence of the name indicated a clear intention to authenticate or sign the email’s contents. The contents of the email only appeared above the automatic name because of the writer’s conscious decision to insert its contents. “Many thanks” showed that the content was connected with the sign off. What’s more, the recipient had no way of knowing whether the name had been added automatically or the sender had manually entered his or her name.

The email had been signed and the claimants were entitled to the order for specific performance.

This finding is in line with earlier cases on guarantees and a recent report of the Law Commission intended to clarify the position.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More