- within Family and Matrimonial, Antitrust/Competition Law and Employment and HR topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives and HR
- with readers working within the Environment & Waste Management and Healthcare industries
Most inheritance disputes do not arise because someone failed to say what they wanted. They arise because what was said never became legally effective. From a contentious probate perspective, this is a familiar pattern. People believe they have dealt with their estate. They believe their wishes were recorded, shared or written down in a way that mattered. After death, families discover that intention and legal effect are not the same thing.
Modern technology has made this problem more common, not because it has changed the law, but because it has changed how people communicate. Messages are sent quickly. Notes are saved digitally. Documents can be drafted in minutes. The existence of a written record creates a sense that something final has been done. In reality, none of this determines how an estate is distributed unless the legal steps required to make a Will have actually been completed.
The moment intention becomes legally binding
In England and Wales, the law is very clear about what turns a person's wishes into a binding Will. It is not how clearly those wishes are expressed. It is not how carefully they are written. It is whether a specific process has been followed.
A Will must be in writing. It must be signed by the person making it. That signature must be made, or acknowledged, in front of two witnesses who are both present at the same time. Those witnesses must then sign the Will themselves, confirming that they witnessed the signature. They should be independent, meaning they are not beneficiaries under the Will and are not married to someone who is. All of this must happen as part of the same process.
These steps are not optional. If any one of them is missing, the document is not a valid Will. A document can set out someone's wishes perfectly and still have no legal effect. This is the point at which intention either becomes law or remains legally irrelevant.
Why WhatsApp messages cannot make a Will binding
The legal execution process for a Will cannot be completed through a WhatsApp message, however clearly it is written.
A WhatsApp message cannot be signed in front of two witnesses. Those witnesses cannot see the person making the message sign it, and they cannot sign to confirm that they have witnessed it. The message cannot be formally executed as part of a single process, and there is no safeguard to ensure that the person sending it understood its legal effect at the time.
For that reason alone, a WhatsApp message cannot create or change a Will. Whilst the courts have recently been examining whether digital messages can satisfy signing requirements in other legal contexts, such as property transfers, it will not affect the position for Wills. The witnessing requirements for testamentary documents serve a specific protective function that cannot be replicated through digital messaging.
What the existence of such litigation does demonstrate is how easily people can mistake digital communications for legally binding documents.
This is where many probate disputes begin. People often assume that because a message is written, dated and saved, it carries legal weight. They may believe that by sending a message to family members or an intended executor, they have done what is needed. In reality, the law treats that message as no more than an expression of intention.
After death, such messages are often relied upon to argue that an existing Will no longer reflected what the deceased wanted, or that the deceased believed their estate had already been dealt with and did not understand that anything more was required. Screenshots and message histories are examined closely, not because they can override a Will, but because they are used to challenge it.
When digital communication hardens disputes
The volume of digital communication now involved in probate disputes has also changed how they unfold. Message histories may span years. Conversations are revisited and reinterpreted. Family relationships are examined through fragments of text, often taken out of their original context.
In Jones v Jones (2023), text messages between family members became crucial evidence in proving a Will had been made under coercion, showing how informal communications can become central to litigation even when they cannot themselves constitute Wills. The messages did not override the formal document, but they helped demonstrate that it should never have been executed in the first place.
Such matters, however, can shift the focus away from the legal validity of a Will and towards competing narratives about what the deceased "really meant". Informal sharing of screenshots before legal advice is taken can entrench positions and deepen mistrust. By the time the legal framework is fully understood, families may already be emotionally invested in arguments built on material that cannot ultimately change the outcome.
From a practical perspective, this is often where disputes become longer, more expensive and more painful than they need to be.
AI drafting and the illusion of completion
Artificial intelligence introduces a different, and in some ways more dangerous, version of the same problem.
AI tools can produce documents that look formal, structured and authoritative. The language is confident. The layout appears professional. For many people, this creates a powerful sense that their Will has been properly prepared. But legally, nothing has been completed unless the document has been signed and properly witnessed.
The law does not care who or what drafted the document. It asks only whether the execution requirements were met. If they were not, the document has no legal effect, regardless of how polished it appears.
Proper execution is also closely linked to understanding. The law requires that the person making a Will understands what they are doing at the time they sign it. A well-written document does not prove that understanding. Nor does articulate language.
Where AI has been used to shape or refine wording, this distinction becomes particularly important. The issue is not whether the document reads sensibly, but whether the person signing it understood its effect. Proper execution, often supported by professional advice, helps demonstrate that the process was understood and followed, reducing the scope for later challenges.
Why these cases keep coming before the courts
From a contentious probate perspective, disputes involving WhatsApp messages or AI-drafted documents are not really about technology at all. They are about execution failure. Someone intended to deal with their estate. They believed they had done enough. They do not realise that the appropriate legal steps have not been taken.
Once the person has died, the position cannot be corrected. Families are left arguing over messages, drafts and digital traces, none of which can change the legal outcome, but all of which can intensify the conflict.
What actually protects your wishes
For anyone looking to make a Will or ensure their wishes are carried out, the lesson is not to avoid technology altogether. Messages can help explain intentions, drafts can help organise thoughts and AI can assist with language, but none of these things replace execution.
If you have already sent messages about your intentions, or drafted a document using AI, this does not prevent you from now executing a proper Will. Those earlier communications simply will not override it. What matters is completing the formal process correctly, with proper witnessing, to ensure your wishes become legally binding.
A properly executed Will remains the only way to ensure that intention becomes legally binding. Without it, even the clearest wishes can unravel, leaving families to deal not only with loss, but with avoidable dispute.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
