Divorced artist battles to maintain £1.5m house she says ex-husband signed over to her by way of WhatsApp – as court docket decides whether or not observe on messaging service is legally binding

A divorced artist, who says her ex-husband signed over their £1.5million London home to her by WhatsApp, is now locked in a dramatic High Court battle to stop bankruptcy officials forcing her out.

Hsiao Mei-Lin, 54 – a London painter who lived for years in the Tufnell Park property with Icelandic financier Audun Mar Gudmundsson – claims the messages her ex sent shortly before he was made bankrupt amounted to a legally binding, written and ‘signed’ transfer of his half of the house.

But the trustees in his bankruptcy insist the texts are worthless and warn that if she wins, any WhatsApp message could be treated as a signed legal document, triggering a landmark ruling with huge implications for millions.

The former couple, who married in 2009 and endured a turbulent relationship marked by alleged ‘abuse’ and ‘violence,’ separated in 2016. 

Their £1.5m home is now at the centre of the High Court fight, with Ms Lin battling to remain in the property where she raised their two children.

Although a family court judge awarded her the house in their 2020 divorce, she discovered only later that her ex had been declared bankrupt just a week earlier, wiping out her ability to claim his share. His creditors are owed more than £2.5million.

She was subsequently declared only a 50 per cent owner – with the other half sucked into the bankruptcy estate – and ordered to sell the property so creditors can be paid, though not until 2032 when her children are adults.

But Ms Lin is now mounting a last-ditch legal challenge before Mr Justice Cawson, claiming she is the rightful outright owner because her ex-husband explicitly gave up his half via WhatsApp.

One of his messages said: ‘I suggest that the responsibility for taking care of the kids goes to u 100%, then I can sign over my share of southcote road to u without any complications as I don’t need any accommodation in London.’

He added: ‘Please let me know that u r happy with this and we can then close the financial part of the divorce this week,’ to which Ms Lin replied: ‘with some monthly maintenance then ok.’

Her barrister argues she was an ‘innocent victim of her husband’s bankruptcy,’ insisting that because the messages appeared under his name on her phone they were effectively ‘written and signed.’

Ms Lin is a Taiwan-born British citizen, who studied at the Royal Academy School of Arts in London, and enjoyed a successful painting career, while her husband ran a mezzanine finance company.

However, despite having two children, the marriage was troubled, with Mr Gudmundsson becoming ‘addicted to methamphetamine and cocaine,’ said Ms Lin’s barrister, Tom Robinson KC.

Amid allegations of ‘abuse’ and ‘violence’ by Mr Gudmundsson, the couple separated in 2016 and Ms Lin began divorce proceedings the following year.

The divorce was finalised in March 2020, when a judge ordered that Mr Gudmundsson hand over his 50 per cent stake in the family home to Ms Lin.

But unbeknownst to her, he had only a week earlier been made bankrupt on a petition from a former friend, allegedly owing him and others more than £2.5m.

It meant Ms Lin was unable to take sole ownership of the house and, after a hearing at the High Court in 2024, a judge declared her only 50 per cent owner, with the other half going into Mr Gudmundsson’s bankruptcy.

She was ordered to leave the house and sell it to enable his creditors to get their money, with the judge delaying the order until 2032 when both her children will be adults.

But it has now gone on to the High Court, where Ms Lin is arguing before Mr Justice Cawson that the effect of the messages is that she is the outright owner of the house.

Ms Lin had been an ‘innocent victim of her husband’s bankruptcy,’ said her barrister.

At the High Court, the trustees, Maxine Reid-Roberts and Brian Burke, and Ms Lin are now fighting over whether the WhatsApp messages validly ‘disposed of’ Mr Gudmundsson’s interest in the house.

For the trustees, barrister Steven Fennell argued that the messages had not been signed and so were not legally binding and if found to be so, ‘the result will be that a WhatsApp message in and of itself, without a ‘signature’ in the text, will in all cases count as signed for the purposes of all statutory requirements for signature.’

He continued: ‘The trustees’ case was that the WhatsApp messages were not signed, because the bankrupt did not include his name in the messages. The trustees say that the WhatsApp messages were in writing, but they were not signed.’

Ms Lin’s lawyers claim that, because Mr Gudmundsson’s name appeared in the header to the messages when they reached her phone, they should be considered ‘signed.’

But Mr Fennell told the judge that WhatsApp does not work like that, because the name which appears at the head of a message is inputted at the recipient’s phone, not the sender’s.

‘If the sender’s device is in the recipient’s contact list, the app will insert the name from the contact list, which could be anything at all,’ he argued.

‘The author of the message does not even know the name under which his/her device is stored in the recipient’s contacts.

‘The trustees accept that the WhatsApp messaging app will identify the WhatsApp account from which a message is sent, i.e. the WhatsApp account linked to a mobile phone number via the app.

‘The fact the identity of the sending account is clear does not mean that messages from that account are ‘signed’ for the purpose of the Law of Property Act 1925.’

He also said that an instant message through WhatsApp is different to an email, which can be considered ‘equivalent to a letter,’ while a WhatsApp cannot.

But the barrister said that, whether signed or not, the content of the messages could not be taken as giving up Mr Gudmundsson’s share, since they were simply discussions ‘subject to contract/consent order’ and ‘clearly not intended to involve immediate dispositions of property.’

‘Viewed against the factual matrix of two parties for whom English is a second language, who have instructed solicitors and who are to be taken to understand that the approval of the court is required…there is simply no basis on which an objective reader could conclude that the bankrupt at any time in that exchange unequivocally relinquished his interest in the property,’ he said.

‘Further, as a matter of public policy, the courts should not discourage negotiations between divorcing spouses by creating fears that an informal communications might have irrevocable consequences.

‘The court should be slow to find an immediate disposition of property absent a very clear intention on the face of the document.’

But for Ms Lin, Mr Robinson argued that the WhatsApp messages showed a clear intention in Mr Gudmundsson to give up his stake in the former family home.

‘By the end of the WhatsApps, the bankrupt had stated that he was moving out of London ‘for good’, wanted Ms Lin to be responsible for taking care of his children ‘100%’ and under that arrangement had no interest in the former matrimonial home as he had no need for accommodation in London,’ he told the judge.

He said a signature can in law take the form of a printed name, a name on a telegram or a rubber stamp, and that Mr Gudmundsson’s name on the messages was ‘intended to confirm the messages as originating from him.’

‘Indeed, in addition to the bankrupt’s name appearing in the header, the bankrupt has caused his photograph to appear there, further identifying the bankrupt as the sender,’ he said.

At the insolvency court, Judge Stuart Frith ruled that the messages amounted to an intention, legally binding on Mr Gudmundsson, to sign away his joint ownership of the house.

However, he went on to find that previous court authority meant that, whatever Mr Gudmundsson intended, it could not take effect until a consent order was made concluding their divorce.

Both the trustees and Ms Lin now agree that the judge was wrong to find that divorcing couples can only give up ownership rights by way of a court order, with the appeal argument now revolving around whether the WhatsApps were intended to sign away his share and whether they were ‘signed’ and so legally binding.

Having found that half of the house value should go into the bankruptcy, Judge Frith in addition ruled that ‘exceptional circumstances’, including the impact on Ms Lin’s health, justified a delay in an order for sale.

He instead ruled that Ms Lin, who claimed the house is her only source of income, as she lets out two rooms to lodgers, could stay until 2032, when her children will be grown up.

The trustees are also appealing against that ruling, arguing that it was wrong for the judge to order an eight-year delay and keep Mr Gudmundsson’s creditors out of their money for so long.

After a two-day hearing, Mr Justice Cawson reserved his judgment on the appeal until a later date.