Key takeaway
It is not a question most landlords or agents expect to grapple with, but a recent County Court decision suggests it is one worth asking.
In N'Guessan v Bewry, the court was asked to consider whether a simple thumbs up emoji sent in response to a tenant’s message could have legal effect. On the facts, it did not, but the more interesting point is that the court was entirely open to the idea that, in the right circumstances, it could.
What happened in N’Guessan v Bewry?
A landlord served notice increasing the rent. The tenant replied by message, explaining that she could not afford the increase. The landlord responded with a 👍. That single emoji became the focus of the dispute.
The tenant argued that it either amounted to a waiver of the rent increase or gave rise to an estoppel by convention preventing the landlord from enforcing it. The court rejected both arguments, but not because the point was fanciful. Rather, it came down to what that emoji actually meant in context.
Can a thumbs up emoji waive a rent increase?
On waiver, the difficulty for the tenant was clarity. A thumbs up is inherently ambiguous. It might mean agreement. It might mean acknowledgment. It might simply mean “message received”. In this exchange, there was nothing to pin it down as a clear and unequivocal agreement to give up the right to increase the rent. The court was not prepared to treat it as such.
In a landlord and tenant context, the point also reinforces the importance of properly documenting any agreed changes, particularly where parties are considering amending a commercial lease.
Could an emoji amount to acceptance in law?
Importantly, the court did not say that an emoji could never have that effect. Quite the opposite. The judgment recognises something that will feel obvious to anyone who uses messaging apps daily: meaning is shaped by context. If the message before the emoji had been a clear proposal: “Can we agree the rent stays at £X?”, a thumbs up in response might look very different. In that situation, it is not difficult to see how a court could interpret it as acceptance.
Why the estoppel by convention argument failed
The tenant also ran an argument based on estoppel by convention, relying on the five-limb test from Benchdollar Ltd v HMRC, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in Tinkler v HMRC. That required her to show, among other things, a clearly shared assumption between the parties, reliance on that assumption, and circumstances making it unconscionable for the landlord to go back on it.
That case was never really going to get off the ground on these facts. There was no shared assumption, only the tenant’s own interpretation of the emoji. The landlord had not adopted or endorsed any common position, and there was no subsequent conduct pointing to both parties proceeding on the same basis. Without that, the argument could not succeed.
Why context matters in informal communications
The court did not dismiss the idea that informal communications can carry legal consequences. It accepted it. The problem here was not the medium, but the message.
That is where this decision has a wider sting. Day-to-day property management is full of quick exchanges, texts, WhatsApps, short replies sent on the move. If a dispute arises, those messages will be read slowly, carefully and in context, often by someone who was not party to the original conversation and context can do a lot of work.
Can short replies like “OK”, “yes” or 👍 create legal risk?
Where there is a clear proposal on the table, even a very short response can take on real significance. A “yes”, an “ok”, or a 👍 may end up being analysed as acceptance or confirmation. The more precise the preceding message, the harder it becomes to argue that a casual response meant nothing at all.
None of this means that every emoji will bind its sender, or that courts will strain to find agreements in everyday exchanges. But it does mean that informal does not equal irrelevant. The law is perfectly capable of attaching consequences to modern forms of communication.
What this means for landlords, agents and businesses
The wider point is that legal risk does not only arise from formal letters, signed agreements or carefully drafted emails. It can also arise from short, informal exchanges where one party later says that a position was accepted, waived or assumed.
For landlords, agents and businesses, the key issue is whether it could objectively be read as confirming agreement, acceptance or a shared assumption.
How to reduce legal risk in informal communications
If something is not agreed, say so. If a message is only intended as acknowledgment, make that clear and, where discussions are ongoing, consider whether communications should be expressly subject to contract.
Please contact the Dispute Resolution team at Barnes Law for advice on communications disputes.
Written by Barnes Law Managing Partner Yulia Barnes.
