Neocleous and another v Rees  EWHC 2462 (Ch)
Following a dispute over a right of way, the parties’ solicitors agreed in an exchange of emails (constituting a single email chain) to compromise the dispute by the defendant (R) transferring to the claimants (N) a small piece of land adjacent to Lake Windermere.
A name automatically added to an email by a ‘footer’ was signed for the purposes of satisfying section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
Following a dispute over a right of way, the parties’ solicitors agreed in an exchange of emails (constituting a single email chain) to compromise the dispute by the defendant (R) transferring to the claimants (N) a small piece of land adjacent to Lake Windermere in consideration of £175,000 to be paid by N to R. N subsequently sought specific performance of the compromise agreement.
R argued that the emails exchanged between the parties’ solicitors did not satisfy the requirement in section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) that a contract for the sale of an interest in land has to be signed by or on behalf of each party. This was because the purported signature by R’s solicitor on an email setting out the main terms of the settlement agreed between the parties arose from the automatic generation of his name, occupation, role and contact details at the foot of the email.
Was the email from R’s solicitor signed for the purposes of section 2 of the 1989 Act?
A name in the ‘footer’ of an email amounted to a signature for the purposes of section 2 of the 1989 Act as long as the name was applied with authenticating intent. In this case, therefore, R’s solicitor had signed the relevant email on behalf of R.
Although under the email account’s settings the relevant words were added automatically to every email without any action or intention on the solicitor's part, the setting up of that rule in the first place had involved the conscious action of a person. It was difficult therefore to distinguish between a name and other details added pursuant to a general rule from the situation where the sender manually adds those details to every email, especially as the recipient of the email has no way of knowing whether the details were added automatically or manually. Looked at objectively, the presence of the name indicated a clear intention to associate the author with the email.
It was also relevant that R’s solicitor had inserted the words “Many thanks” before the automatic footer in his email as this strongly suggested that the solicitor was relying on the automatic footer to sign off his name.
Points to note/consider
- R had argued that signing a document requires the writing of the signatory’s name or mark in his/her own hand, even though the writing may be inserted electronically (e.g. by a hand-written signature being scanned and the digital document that results being inserted in to the document). This argument was rejected by the judge in favour of the broader and simpler test of whether the signatory’s name was applied to the document with authenticating intent? This mirrors the approach of the recently published Law Commission report on the electronic execution of documents which is at pains to stress that it does not focus on nor favour a particular type of technology.
- This case is a reminder of the importance of ensuring that all pre-contract exchanges of emails which purport to set out the terms of a proposed disposition of property are headed ‘subject to contract’ to avoid the possibility of the parties inadvertently becoming contractually obliged to proceed with a transaction at a time when they may not yet be in a position to do so.
Professional Development Lawyer
+44 (0)115 934 2019
You may be interested in...
In Person Event
'Autonomous vehicles: what the future holds' event
Shared Insights: Data and Information Governance Issues
Browne Jacobson advises privacy-first ad tech company Covatic on Series A investment led by Manchester based Praetura Ventures
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
AI modelling biases in quote engines
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Update on data protection claims - Austrian Post Case
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Mediation – remote or in person?
Solar panel projects for higher education institutions
Browne Jacobson launches specialist Ascensus programme for in house lawyers and business leaders
Browne Jacobson advise on strategic sale of cybersecurity firm Nowcomm
Government to expand network and Information systems regulations
Confirmation of ACAS early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
Browne Jacobson advise Leicestershire based tech compliance specialists Obsequio Group on two key investment deals for build and buy strategy
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Mopping up after a leak – how businesses can take steps to protect their confidential information
UK Government publishes the Online Safety Bill: an overview
NSIA: the thorn in the side of M&A?
Product distribution – how to protect yourself from an early exit
Cyber security and data breaches
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has approval to take over from the Solicitors Indemnity Fund
Embargoed Judgments: A Professional Word of Caution
Digital Twin Technologies: key legal contractual considerations
J A Ball Limited (in Administration) v St Philips Homes (Courthaulds) Ltd
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Update on the Digital Services Act (“DSA”) – Important Dates and Deadlines Looming
Term-time school worker entitled to national minimum wage for unworked basic hours
Government publishes its proposals for expanding the Scope of the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018
Government response to the consultation on the Higher-Risk Buildings Regulations
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
What are freeports and what benefits could they offer?
Litigation in 2023 – Reforms on the horizon
2023: Horizon scanning in construction
Browne Jacobson advises Superscript on £45m Series B funding round to transform its SME insurtech offering
Protecting children and their data in the online environment
FAQs for startups
Below are some of the questions we are regularly asked by startups, covering a range of topic areas.