WhatsApp messages create binding construction contract, UK High Court rules

Court rules UK case confirms WhatsApp message created valid agreement

The Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) has reported that a UK court has ruled an exchange of WhatsApp messages was sufficient to form a legally binding construction contract.

The Technology and Construction Court delivered its judgement in Jaevee Homes Limited v Mr Steve Fincham (trading as Fincham Demolition) [2025] EWHC 942 (TCC), confirming that informal digital communications can establish contractual relationships if they include the required elements of contract law.

According to BESA, this ruling reaffirms existing principles but signals the increasing importance of clarity when using informal channels like messaging apps in construction projects.

The judgement follows a dispute between Norfolk-based developers Jaevee Homes and Fincham Demolition over demolition work at a former nightclub in Norwich, which commenced without a signed contract but was preceded by a WhatsApp exchange confirming the job.

The ruling upheld an adjudicator’s earlier decision, confirming that the informal messages constituted a valid agreement and that the payment claims submitted afterward were enforceable under that contract.

Background of the demolition dispute in Norwich

BESA outlined that Jaevee Homes initially approached Fincham Demolition in early 2023 for work on a redevelopment project in Norwich.

Following discussions by email regarding pricing and scope, Fincham sent a quotation, but no formal contract was signed.

The decisive interaction occurred on 17 May 2023, when Fincham sent a message via WhatsApp asking: “Are we saying it’s my job mate so I can start getting organised mate.” Ben James of Jaevee Homes responded: “Yes.”

Although Jaevee Homes subsequently issued a written subcontract and purchase order, these documents were not signed or acknowledged by Fincham.

As demolition works progressed, the working relationship broke down.

Fincham submitted four payment applications in June, which Jaevee Homes argued were invalid under their interpretation of a monthly payment agreement.

Jaevee insisted the unsigned subcontract governed the relationship, while Fincham maintained that the agreement was based on the WhatsApp messages.

Court confirms contract was formed via WhatsApp

The High Court found that the WhatsApp messages included the core elements needed to create a contract.

According to the judgement, these included offer and acceptance, consideration (payment), intention to form legal relations and sufficient certainty in terms.

BESA reported that the court placed emphasis on the clarity of the initial WhatsApp exchange.

It stated that the absence of formal documents or a signature did not prevent the creation of a legally binding construction contract.

This was because the communications demonstrated agreement on scope, price and the parties’ intentions to proceed.

The court also upheld that the invoices submitted by Fincham were valid payment notices under the contract formed on 17 May 2023.

Implications for digital communication in construction contracting

BESA advised its members that the ruling is a reminder of the legal risks associated with informal communications.

While the use of digital platforms such as WhatsApp, SMS or email is common in commercial settings, these channels can unintentionally formalise agreements if care is not taken.

The association stated that even brief, casual conversations may bind businesses to contractual terms if they include key contractual elements.

It noted that contractors should follow up informal messages with a written document that clearly outlines the agreement and overrides previous communications where necessary.

BESA warned that other emerging risks – including the use of disappearing messages, voice notes or AI-generated texts – may also carry legal consequences, depending on how courts interpret these formats.

Legal guidance from BESA for construction businesses

BESA has issued practical guidance to support its members in navigating this issue.

The association recommends that construction businesses document agreements in writing after any informal negotiation.

It also advised firms to review how digital platforms are used internally and externally, and to consider setting policies that clarify acceptable channels for key project communications.

BESA’s Legal and Commercial team remains available to assist members with contract drafting or interpretation queries.

Organisations can contact the legal team via legal@thebesa.com or call 020 7313 4919 for further advice.

WhatsApp messages create binding construction contract: Summary

The UK High Court ruled on a construction dispute between Jaevee Homes and Fincham Demolition.

The judgement was issued in Jaevee Homes Ltd v Fincham [2025] EWHC 942 (TCC).

The court confirmed that WhatsApp messages can form a legally binding contract.

The court upheld that a message from Fincham and a reply from Jaevee constituted agreement.

A subsequent unsigned subcontract was not considered the governing contract.

Invoices submitted by Fincham were found to be valid under the WhatsApp contract.

The case confirms that offer, acceptance, consideration, intention and certainty can be formed digitally.

The Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) advised that contractors should treat digital messages carefully.

It stated that businesses should follow up informal agreements with formal written documentation.

BESA recommended reviewing internal messaging practices and communication platforms.

The association also offered legal support for members through its legal team.

Eaton Fire lawsuit targets Southern California Edison over wildfire damage

Legal action taken over Eaton Fire destruction

KJT Law Group, in partnership with former Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and Parris Law Firm, has filed a mass tort lawsuit against Southern California Edison (SCE), alleging responsibility for the Eaton Fire.

The fire has destroyed over 7,000 structures and displaced thousands since it began on 7 January 2025. It has burned more than 14,000 acres and caused the deaths of 16 people.

According to KJT Law Group, eyewitnesses reported that the fire started near a power structure in Altadena. The firm alleges that SCE failed to take appropriate preventive measures despite forecasts of strong winds in the region.

Community impact and response

Residents in Altadena and Pasadena have faced widespread destruction and emergency evacuations.

An unnamed Altadena resident described the fire’s rapid spread: “The fire started towards the top of the mountain and rushed down so fast we didn’t have any time to think or pack anything. The majority of our street is burned to the ground and the street behind me has only two homes left. It’s heartbreaking.”

Thousands of individuals have been left without homes, with long-term recovery expected to take months or years.

Legal perspective on the claims

Caspar Jivalagian, a founding partner of KJT Law Group, commented on the firm’s motivation behind the lawsuit: “This is about accountability. We will not sit by without demanding answers on how this happened and why it wasn’t prevented – no matter who we are up against.”

Jivalagian also noted that the firm aims to support those affected: “We want everyone in Pasadena and Altadena to know that they are not alone. This is personal for us. We are going to do everything in our power to help those impacted – irrespective of their homeowner’s insurance.”

Wider concerns over California wildfires and insurance

The Eaton Fire is one of four major wildfires that have affected the Greater Los Angeles area in 2025, fuelled by strong Santa Ana winds.

The legal action comes amid growing concerns about fire insurance in California. Many residents lost coverage when insurers withdrew from the market, with some policies expiring at the end of 2024 without renewal options.

Eaton Fire lawsuit targets Southern California Edison over wildfire damage: Summary

KJT Law Group, in collaboration with former Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and Parris Law Firm, has filed a mass tort lawsuit against Southern California Edison. The lawsuit alleges that SCE is responsible for the Eaton Fire, which has destroyed over 7,000 structures, displaced thousands, and caused 16 deaths since it began on 7 January 2025.

Eyewitness reports suggest the fire originated near a power structure in Altadena. The lawsuit claims SCE did not take sufficient preventive measures despite forecasts of strong winds. Residents in Altadena and Pasadena have experienced widespread destruction and prolonged displacement.

The lawsuit is one of several legal challenges arising from wildfires in California. The Eaton Fire is among four major fires that have impacted the Greater Los Angeles area in 2025. Fire insurance coverage has also become a pressing issue, with many policies expiring at the end of 2024 without renewal options.