0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Neocleous and another v Rees [2019] EWHC 2462 (Ch)

7 October 2019

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.

Facts

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.

Issue

Was the email from R’s solicitor signed for the purposes of section 2 of the 1989 Act?

Decision

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

training and events

22Jan

Broker Insight London office

Developed for brokers, this exclusive series of events will provide you with operational and practical insights from across the legal spectrum.

View event

29Jan

Claims club Exeter office

We are pleased to invite you to our first Claims Club of 2020 where we will be looking at a number of topical issues such as; risk proposition, environmental changes and harassment in the workplace.

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

FOIA and data protection: the difficult balancing exercise for public authorities when a request is made for third party personal data

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘FOIA’) allows members of the public to request information from public bodies. As guidance issued by the Information Commissioner explains, the main principle behind FOIA is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities, unless there is a good reason for them not to.

View

Legal updates

A claimant’s Part 36 offer – just beat it

In the recent case of Hochtief (UK) Construction Limited, Volkerfitzpatrick Limited v Atkins Limited [2019] EWHC 3028 (TCC), the claimant made a Part 36 offer to settle of £875,000 early on in the dispute.

View

Legal updates

Bella Italia Restaurants Ltd v Stane Park Ltd and others [2019] EWHC 2747 (Ch)

The obligation in an agreement for lease to complete the lease was not personal to the original landlord.

View

Legal updates

University of London v Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 2075

An agreement permitting an operator access to carry out a survey can be imposed on an occupier under the Electronic Communications Code 2017.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

David Harris

David Harris

Professional Development Lawyer

View profile

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up