Could a thumbs up emoji bind you? County Court ruling highlights potential risks for property professionals

Can a thumbs up emoji sent in a text message have binding legal effect? The recent County Court decision in N'Guessan v Bewry [2026] EWCC 9, a residential possession claim suggests it could – though on the particular facts of this case the court found that the emoji did not bind the landlord. While it is only a County Court decision and was decided on its specific facts, the case is a useful reminder for property professionals of the legal weight that informal communications can carry.

The case in brief

A landlord served notice increasing the rent. The tenant messaged the landlord to say that she could not afford the increase and the landlord responded to that message with a thumbs up emoji. The tenant argued that the emoji waived the increase or gave rise to an estoppel by convention preventing the landlord relying on the notice to increase the rent. The court rejected both arguments, but its reasoning is interesting.

The thumbs up emoji: not a waiver, but not irrelevant

The court held that the thumbs up emoji did not amount to a waiver of the rent increase, but critically did not rule out that an emoji could have binding effect in other circumstances. 

Here, the emoji was ambiguous: it could have meant the landlord understood the tenant's position, or merely noted it, rather than agreeing to forgo the increase. Had the context been different – for example, had the tenant proposed a specific alternative and the landlord responded with a thumbs up, the outcome might well have been different. 

Estoppel by convention: the five-limb test

The tenant also relied on estoppel by convention. The court applied the five-limb Benchdollar test, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in Tinkler v HMRC [2021] UKSC 39.

To establish an estoppel by convention, a party must show: (i) an expressly shared common assumption between the parties; (ii) that the party alleged to be estopped assumed responsibility for that assumption, conveying that the other party was expected to rely on it; (iii) actual reliance on the common assumption, rather than on the claimant's own independent view; (iv) that the reliance occurred in the context of subsequent mutual dealing; and (v) sufficient detriment to the person alleging the estoppel, or benefit to the person estopped, to make it unconscionable to assert the true position. 

None of the five limbs was made out on the facts. There was no expressly shared assumption; the landlord had not assumed responsibility for any shared understanding; the tenant relied only on her own view; and there was no subsequent mutual dealing evidencing reliance.

What this means for property professionals

Although this is a County Court decision in a residential context, its reasoning has wider implications. The court accepted that an emoji could in principle have binding effect. A thumbs up sent in haste during a negotiation could, in the right context, be construed as acceptance, confirmation, or a waiver, particularly where the preceding message contains a clear proposition. Contractual obligations, waivers, and estoppels can arise from informal communications not only from formal correspondence. 

That said, the five Benchdollar principles set a clear standard for estoppel by convention. But the more explicit and specific an informal exchange becomes, the greater the risk that these thresholds could be crossed.

Take care when negotiating via informal messaging platforms, as those communications run the risk of being binding in the same way as formal written correspondence. If a proposal is not acceptable, the response should say so clearly: silence or an ambiguous emoji risks being construed against the sender. 

The thumbs up emoji did not carry the day in this case, but the court's willingness to entertain the argument is reason to pause. In an era of instant messaging, a moment's carelessness could have significant commercial consequences. The safest course is to ensure that any substantive communication during a negotiation is clear, considered, and on a subject to contract basis (where appropriate).