Can WhatsApp messages be used in a commercial dispute?

Yes. Under CPR r.31.4, a document is anything in which information of any description is recorded. That definition is deliberately broad and has always extended well beyond paper.

Practice Direction 31B, which governs electronic disclosure, and Practice Direction 57AD, which applies in the Business and Property Courts, both reflect the reality that the majority of relevant material in modern commercial disputes is electronic. WhatsApp messages, voice notes, attachments, group chat histories and the metadata associated with them all fall within the scope of what must be considered.

The Civil Evidence Act 1995 removes the exclusion of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings and provides safeguards relevant to weight, including the ability to prove a statement by a suitably authenticated copy where it is admissible. Relevance, privilege, authenticity and procedural requirements still matter. Admitting a document does not mean accepting that everything it says is true.

The value of WhatsApp evidence depends entirely on what the messages actually say and what issues are in dispute. In the right case, they can be highly significant.

Messages have been relevant to: what was agreed between the parties, including informal variations to formal arrangements; representations made before a contract was signed; what a party knew at a particular time; instructions given or received; the timing of decisions and events; the reasons a party gave for a course of action; the credibility of a witness whose oral evidence differs from what they wrote at the time; the contemporaneous reaction of a party to a problem or dispute; and the nature of the relationship between the parties.

Courts in commercial litigation have become accustomed to examining informal communications alongside formal correspondence. A carefully worded letter written after a dispute has arisen may carry less weight than a candid message sent in the moment.

Screenshots are a common way of preserving WhatsApp messages, but they have real limitations.

A screenshot captures what was visible on screen at a particular moment. It does not capture the messages immediately before or after the extract, which may change its meaning entirely. It does not show who else was in a group chat, or whether other participants sent messages that have been omitted. Screenshots may capture visible names and dates, but they do not preserve the complete conversation or all underlying metadata — the sender, recipient, timestamp and device information — which the original carries. That metadata may be important for establishing authenticity and sequence.

Screenshots can also be edited. A court will want to be satisfied that a screenshot accurately represents the original conversation, and a party relying on a screenshot may face challenge if the original cannot be produced or independently verified. Specialists may recover material from available device data, backups or another participant's copy, but recovery is not guaranteed. Some deleted messages cannot be recovered. Preserve the source material where possible and obtain proportionate technical help where needed.

None of this means screenshots are inadmissible. They can be useful, particularly as a quick record of a conversation that might otherwise be lost. But they are not a substitute for preserving the original, and a screenshot produced without context is unlikely to carry the same weight as the full conversation.

This is a question that arises more often than it used to, and the answer requires care.

Whether a contract has been formed or varied depends on ordinary contractual principles: offer, acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations. There is no rule that prevents a contract from being formed or varied by electronic message. If the messages show a clear offer and a clear acceptance, with the other elements present, a court may find that a binding agreement was reached.

However, a contractual clause requiring variations to be in writing and signed is generally effective. The Supreme Court confirmed in Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] UKSC 24 (paragraphs 10–16) that such No Oral Modification clauses are effective. Whether a WhatsApp exchange satisfies the stipulated formalities depends on the wording of the clause, the messages, authority and any applicable signature requirements. A limited estoppel argument may arise on appropriate facts, but should not be assumed. The safest course is to comply with the agreed variation procedure.

The practical lesson is that informal messages can create real legal risk. A message that looks like a casual acknowledgement may be argued to be a binding commitment. Businesses that conduct commercial negotiations informally should be aware of what their messages might be taken to mean.

Potentially, yes. Deletion from a device does not necessarily mean a message has gone permanently.

Electronic disclosure can extend beyond material currently visible on screen. Messages may exist in cloud backups, on the recipient’s device, in a third party’s phone, or in data that has not yet been overwritten on the original device. Recovery may be possible from available device data, backups or another participant’s copy, but it is not guaranteed. Some deleted messages cannot be recovered. Recovery depends on the device, backup settings and how much time has passed.

In Lloyds Developments Ltd v Accor Hotel Services UK Ltd [2024] EWHC 1238 (TCC), the court required an independent review of the claimant's WhatsApp disclosure because its presentation and redactions made it difficult to understand. The later 2026 judgment in the same litigation ([2026] EWHC 1522 (TCC)) addressed access to former directors' personal phones, with legal rights, privacy safeguards and technical limits all relevant. Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd [2026] EWHC 768 (Ch) similarly involved issues arising from the collection and disclosure of electronic material including mobile device content.

The assumption that deletion is permanent is a mistake, and attempting to delete relevant material once a dispute is in prospect is a serious matter.

WhatsApp's disappearing messages feature automatically deletes messages after a set period — 24 hours, 7 days or 90 days, depending on the setting.

If that feature is enabled on a relevant conversation, messages will be deleted automatically unless steps are taken to preserve them. Once a dispute is reasonably anticipated, the duty to preserve relevant documents arises. Allowing a disappearing messages setting to continue running after that point, without taking steps to preserve the content, creates a real risk of a disclosure failure. Disabling disappearing messages does not itself save messages already set to expire: preserve relevant existing material promptly.

The practical step is straightforward: if a dispute is in prospect and a relevant conversation has disappearing messages enabled, turn the feature off and take steps to preserve the existing content before any further messages are deleted.

Yes, potentially. The fact that a conversation took place on a personal device rather than a company system does not take it outside the scope of disclosure.

What matters is whether the document is relevant to the issues in the dispute and within the party's control. A director who conducted commercial negotiations over WhatsApp on their personal phone holds documents that are relevant and within their control. The personal nature of the device is not a shield. Using a personal phone does not exempt relevant business records from disclosure.

The applicable disclosure regime and the proportionality of requiring personal device searches will be relevant to how the issue is handled in practice. What is required depends on control, the applicable order and proportionate safeguards for private or privileged material. Preserve complete relevant conversations; take advice before removing context or applying redactions. Relevance and privilege decisions should not be made simply by selecting helpful messages.

Group chats add a layer of complexity. A conversation between two people is relatively straightforward to locate and preserve. A group chat may involve multiple participants, some of whom are not parties to the dispute, and may contain a large volume of messages only some of which are relevant.

The context provided by a group chat can be important. A message that appears significant in isolation may read differently when the full group conversation is visible, including who else was present and what they said. Conversely, a message that appeared innocuous may become significant when the group context is understood.

In major commercial litigation, group chat disclosure can generate substantial volumes of material. The Phones 4U litigation against EE and others involved extensive examination of electronic communications, including informal messages, as part of a large and complex disclosure exercise. That case illustrates how informal communications — including those sent in group contexts — can become central to the factual narrative in high-value commercial disputes.

The practical point is that group chats should not be overlooked when identifying relevant document sources. All participants who are within the party's control should be considered, and the full conversation — not just selected extracts — should be preserved.

Yes. Under CPR r.31.6, standard disclosure requires a party to disclose documents which adversely affect their own case, adversely affect another party’s case, or support another party’s case — not only documents which help them. CPR Part 31 does not apply to small claims. In proceedings governed by PD 57AD, its disclosure duties and ordered models apply instead of most of Part 31. Known adverse documents must be addressed under that regime, subject to privilege.

Disclosure obligations can continue as the case develops. If a further document falls within the applicable disclosure duties, it must be dealt with under those duties and the court's directions. Privilege may justify withholding inspection or production; disclosure of a document's existence is distinct from allowing the other party to inspect its contents.

The existence of an adverse message is not, by itself, fatal to a case. Courts are accustomed to weighing evidence that points in different directions. What courts take seriously is the concealment or destruction of adverse material. Trying to make an unhelpful message disappear is not a strategy — it is a risk.

Legal professional privilege can protect certain communications from inspection by the other side. A WhatsApp conversation between a client and their lawyer, seeking or giving legal advice, may be covered by legal advice privilege in the same way as an email or letter.

Legal advice privilege and litigation privilege have different requirements. Litigation privilege generally requires adversarial proceedings to be in progress or reasonably contemplated and the dominant purpose of the communication to be obtaining advice, information or evidence for conducting those proceedings. Merely discussing a dispute, or copying a lawyer into a business message, is not enough.

Privilege can also be lost. Forwarding legal advice to third parties, sharing it in a group chat, or circulating it more widely than necessary can all create arguments that privilege has been waived. Once lost, privilege cannot generally be reasserted.

The practical guidance is to keep legal advice within the group of people who genuinely need to see it, and to take advice before sharing it outside that group — including in a WhatsApp conversation.

Once a dispute is in prospect, the duty to preserve relevant documents arises. The following steps are worth taking promptly.

Take reasonable steps to preserve potentially relevant messages, including messages that may be adverse or that you are uncertain about. Preserve the device or devices on which relevant conversations took place. Turn off disappearing messages on any relevant conversations. Identify the group chats and individual conversations that may be relevant. Retain any attachments sent or received in those conversations — photographs, documents, voice notes and videos are all potentially disclosable. Do not delete material because it appears irrelevant or unhelpful.

Do not edit or crop screenshots as your sole record of a conversation. If you are taking screenshots as a precaution, keep the full conversation visible and note the date and time of capture.

Take advice before attempting large-scale extraction of data from a device. Extracting electronic evidence without the right knowledge can inadvertently alter metadata and create problems later. Where the volume of material is significant, or where forensic recovery of deleted material may be needed, consider involving a specialist e-disclosure provider.