September 20, 2020

Volume X, Number 264

September 18, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

COVID 19 and “Electronic” Execution of English Law Documents

In light of the on-going Covid-19 pandemic, many organisations are implementing remote working policies and limiting access to offices in order to effect social distancing measures.  Notwithstanding the changes to usual working practices, organisations continue to enter into binding contractual arrangements with their commercial counterparties.

From a practical perspective, remote working policies mean that authorised signatories may no longer have the ability to execute English law governed documents in the usual way, which would be  by attending physical signing meetings, or following “Mercury compliant” Law Society signing guidelines which prescribe for signature pages to be printed out and PDF scanned copies of the hard copy signature pages to be emailed to their lawyers and released in due course.

“Electronic” or “digital execution” of documents is likely to be increasingly used in the coming months if traditional methods of executing documents are unavailable. This note summarises the position under English law in relation to “electronic execution” of documents.

The Current Law

Electronic signatures are a valid means of executing a document[1][2], including simple contracts and deeds, provided that:

  • the individual signing the document intends to authenticate the document; and

  • any formalities relating to the execution of the document are satisfied.

Intention to Authenticate

Satisfying the this test is a question of intention and, in a commercial context, is unlikely to be disputed where steps have been taken to execute a document electronically, particularly given that the executed signature page will be shared with the counterparty.

The Courts have considered what constitutes “signing” a document, and have confirmed that the following methods will suffice:

  • printing a name;[3]

  • signing with initials[4]; and

  • signing with an “X”[5].

Commercial parties are unlikely to rely on methods of signature which might be considered ambiguous, such as those set out above, but can be reassured in this context that the Courts have taken such an expansive view.

In reality, commercial parties will be more likely to use clearer methods of digital execution, such as:

  • electronic signature services, such as Docusign; or

  • adding an existing scanned signature of an authorised signatory to the signature page for the relevant document.

If either of these methods are not available, organisations may sign simple contracts (which do not require specific execution formalities) by way of less formal means, such as via email. The Courts have confirmed that a name typed at the bottom of an email can constitute a signature and as such this is an approved means for executing simple contracts.[6]

To avoid ambiguity as to whether a document has been validly executed by email, parties should consider including express wording in the relevant document acknowledging that the document has been signed by way of email.

Parties should also consider agreeing express language in the email message by which the document is signed with their counterparties, as well as attaching a PDF of the final agreed form of the document when signing the document.

Execution Formalities

English law imposes certain formalities on the execution of certain types of agreement. These are summarised in the table below.

Agreement/Type of Document

Formalities for execution by a Company or a  Limited Liability Partnership

Simple Contract

No specific formalities, merely offer, acceptance, certainty as to terms and intention to create legal relations.

Deed

Must be in writing, signed, witnessed if signed by one director or member, and delivered.

Guarantee

Must be in writing, or evidenced by writing, and signed.

Transfers of registered securities under the Stock Transfer Act 1963

Must be made “under hand” ie in writing but not necessarily by deed, in the form provided in Schedule 1 to the Stock Transfer Act 1963.

Contract for the sale of land

Must be in writing and signed, incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document (or, if contracts are exchanged, in each document).

Unilateral Promise

Must be executed by way of deed.

Lasting power of attorney

Must be executed by way of deed in a prescribed form and containing prescribed information.

An agreement signed by way of electronic signature must comply with these formalities to ensure that the document is validly executed.

The most onerous formality to satisfy where a document is executed electronically is likely to be the requirement for a deed to be witnessed. The Law Commission’s interpretation of the current law, that the a deed must be signed “in the presence of a witness”, is that the witness must be physically present at the time of signature, and that “virtual witnessing”, such as over video conference, will not satisfy this requirement.

Witnesses to the signature of a deed are required to be independent so that they can provide unbiased evidence of what was signed and by whom, if required. As such, witnesses should not be a spouse, partner or family member of the signatory, nor should witnesses have any interest in the deed being executed. Similarly, a party to the deed should not witness another party’s signature.

Given that signatories may be in quarantine, it may be difficult to find someone other than a family member to witness the signature of a document. One potential solution may be for a neighbour (who is not related and who does not have an interest in the document) to witness the signature of the document and sign themselves, whilst practising appropriate social distancing measures.

General Requirements for Virtual Execution of Documents

In addition, the typical requirements for virtual execution of documents will apply in respect of documents signed by way of electronic signature following the Mercury case.[7]

The Law Society has produced guidance on “best practice” in this respect. This guidance is summarised in the table below.

Agreement/Type of Document

Option 1 – Return Entire document with the signed signature page

Option 2 – Return the signature page only

Option 3 – Pre-signed signature pages

Simple Contract (not incorporating a guarantee or for the sale of land)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Deed

Yes

No

No

Guarantee

Yes

Yes

Yes

Contract for the sale of land

Yes

No

No

 


[1]               Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (“eIDAS”) Article 25(1), Article 3(10) and Recital 49.

[2]               Law Comm No 386, HC 2624

[3]               J Pereira Fernandes SA v Mehta [2006] EWHC 813 (Ch) at [26]

[4]               Ibid.

[5]               Jenkins v Gaisford & Thring (1863) 3 Sw & Tr 93.

[6]               Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries PVT Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 265 at [32]

[7]               R (on the application of Mercury Tax Group and another) v HMRC [2008] EWHC 2721

© 2020 Bracewell LLPNational Law Review, Volume X, Number 79

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Alastair Young, Energy, Natural Resources, Attorney, Bracewell Law Firm
Partner

Alastair is a corporate lawyer who focuses on the energy and natural resources sector. His experience includes UK and international mergers and acquisitions, cross-border joint ventures and the development of major energy projects.

44-0-207-448-4205
Oliver Irwin Bracewell FInance Attorney
Partner

Oliver advises lenders and sponsors on the development and financing of cross-border projects across a broad range of industries, many of which are the first of its kind in their industry. He has significant experience advising on multi-sourced project financings involving export credit agencies, multilaterals and development finance institutions. He is also a regular speaker at industry conferences.

IFLR1000 has identified Oliver as a “Rising Star” every year since 2013, and he has been ranked by Chambers and Partners each year since 2012, where clients report that Oliver is considered “truly outstanding” and highlight his “knowledge of debt financing” and “drive to get the deal done.” Oliver is also ranked as a “Next Generation Lawyer” for Projects, Energy & Natural Resources: Infrastructure in the Legal 500 2018-19 rankings, and was nominated by in-house counsel and peers to appear in Euromoney’s 2015, 2016 and 2017 “Rising Stars” Expert Guides.

Recent Notable Matters

Impact Oil & Gas Ltd — financing arrangements for the acquisition of an interest by Main Street 1549 Proprietary Limited (a Black Economic Empowerment company) in the Exploration Right for Block 11B/12B (offshore South Africa) and the first exploration well to be drilled on the block, and the associated $35M equity placing, as lender

Premier Oil Sea Lion Development — representing Premier Oil in connection with the proposed project financing of the Sea Lion offshore oil field development in the North Falkland basin

Financing of Vitol participation in OCTP oil and gas field — representing IFC, UK Export Finance and eight commercial banks in connection with the $1.5 billion financing of Vitol’s participation in the development of Ghana’s Offshore Cape Three Points (OCTP) oil and gas field. This multi-sourced quasi project and reserve-based lending (RBL) financing also included a Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) covered facility and benefited from complex World Bank support arrangements in relation to the gas offtake. The project’s overall cost of approximately $7 billion represents the largest foreign direct investment in Ghana’s history, and UKEF’s largest direct loan to date.*

Financing of Isramco’s participation in Tamar gas field — representing the Lenders and hedge counterparties in connection with the $1.25 billion hybrid RBL bridge and term Dollar/Shekel loan facilities to Isramco for its participation in the development of the Israeli offshore Tamar gas field*

Cerro Dominador — representing EIG in connection with the $800 million project financing of a 100-megawatt PV solar plant and 110-megawatt concentrated solar power (CSP) solar plant in Chile, the first project financing of a CSP solar plant in Latin America*

Saavi Energia — representing Actis in connection with the financing arrangements for its $1.256 billion acquisition of 2,220-megawatt of operating assets in Mexico*

* Work completed prior to Bracewell

+44.(0).207.448.4228
John Gilbert Energy Law Solicitor Bracewell Law Firm UK
Partner

John Gilbert resolves disputes in the energy sector through litigation, arbitration, expert determination and mediation. He advises on a broad range of disputes related to oil and gas exploration and production, the construction and operation of pipelines and the downstream sector. John has particular experience representing clients locked in disputes over gas sales agreements, including price reviews and on the operation of take-or-pay provisions. In addition, he has advised on disputes relating to power generation, both conventional and renewables.

John has also represented...

+44.(0).207.448.4296