The High Court has ruled that a contract for demolition work made through WhatsApp messages was valid.
Property developer Jaevee Homes, based in Norwich, had taken demolition contractor Steve Fincham to London’s Construction and Technology Court, claiming that a £256,000 deal made over WhatsApp was not valid.
However, deputy district judge Mr Justice Roger ter Haar KC ruled that the WhatsApp exchange between Jaevee chief executive Ben James and Fincham, who was trading as Fincham Demolition, was a valid contractual agreement.
“In my judgment, the exchange of WhatsApp messages, whilst informal, evidenced and constituted a concluded contract,” he said.
The judge said that a message exchange between the two men on 23 May 2023 constituted a contract based on the project’s fee, work scope and payment terms.
The dispute involved demolition works at a former nightclub in Norwich.
“The claimant engaged the defendant to carry out the demolition works subject to a basic contract formed by the exchange of written communications by email and WhatsApp text messages between April 2023 and 17 May 2023 which included an entitlement on the part of the defendant to issue monthly applications for payment,” he said.
The messages saw Fincham asking James whether the job was his, and James replying, “Can you start on Monday?” When Fincham sent him the particulars, he asked: “Are you saying it’s my job mate so I can get organised?” James replied “Yes”.
Fincham had previously won a case at the High Court for unpaid invoices against Jaevee totalling £145,896.31 with interest. However, the sum was not paid by Jaevee, which then led to the latest legal action.
Under the Scheme for Construction Contracts Regulations, disputes involving contracts can go to adjudication and give the adjudicator the power to open up review and revise any decision or certificate under the contract.
Commenting on the judgment, Nigel Davies of Davies and Davies solicitors, who was not involved in proceedings, said the lack of detail in the contract led to reliance on the scheme.
“This case underscores the importance of clearly defining payment terms, even in informal communications,” he said.
“While a WhatsApp exchange formed a binding contract, its lack of detail led to reliance on the scheme. The court took a common sense, contextual approach to interpreting both the contract and invoices – especially significant in dealings between smaller entities.”