In Reid-Roberts v Lin the High Court heard that a jointly owned property was a marital asset in the divorce of Hsiao Mei‑Lin and Audun Mar Gudmundsson. During divorce proceedings Ms Lin asserted that Mr Gudmundsson had indicated via WhatsApp messages that he would transfer his share of the property to her. 

The court found that WhatsApp headers, where the sender’s name is shown, do not satisfy s53(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 requirements for a signature. The court also found that the content of the messages did not indicate an unequivocal intention to immediately give up his beneficial interest.

Mr Gudmundsson was declared bankrupt one week before the divorce order was made, so his share of the property vested in the bankruptcy estate, and the court rejected Ms Lin’s assertion that she had acquired full ownership. In April 2024, the Deputy Judge ordered Ms Lin to deliver up to the Trustees vacant possession of the Property on 1 August 2032, when the children would be adults, after which the property was to be sold with conduct of the sale being given to the Trustees.

The appeal was brought by the Trustees in Bankruptcy against Ms Lin and Mr Gudmundsson, who argued that the Deputy Judge “was wrong to find that there were “exceptional circumstances” in Ms Lin’s favour” and defer sale of the property until 2032 which the Trustees thought to be excessive. Ms Lin meanwhile argued that the Deputy Judge was wrong to find that Mr Gudmundsson’s share of the property had not vested in her.

The default statutory position in bankruptcy is that after one year from the bankruptcy order the interests of creditors normally outweigh all other considerations (s 335A(3) Insolvency Act 1986). Ms Lin argued that the conduct of Mr Gudmundsson (who failed to disclose bankruptcy in the family proceedings thereby delaying the property adjustment order), and impact on her and their children, created exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the sale.

Mr Justice Cawson found that the Deputy Judge was correct that the property had not vested in Ms Lin, albeit for different reasons, and also that he was entitled to find there were exceptional circumstances to delay the sale, but the length of time was excessive, thereby ordering vacant possession to be delivered up by 31 July 2027.