The Legal Position on Ghosting in Australia

…Unsplash

Ghosting is now a normal part of modern communication. It happens in dating, in friendships, and sometimes even at work. One day the messages stop, and no explanation ever comes. It often feels unfair, and it raises a real legal question, not just a personal one. Does Australian law give a person any way to act on it? And if not, why not?

This article looks at three legal doctrines a person might try to use if they wanted to take legal action over being ghosted. These are the requirement of intention to create legal relations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel, and the tort of negligent misstatement. None of these doctrines is likely to help someone dealing with ordinary ghosting. The law does step in once conduct becomes something more serious, and this article explains exactly where that line sits.

This question matters more now than it used to. Relationships increasingly start and end through platforms like Instagram and Facebook, so questions about the legal weight of a text message or a dating app conversation come up more often than they once did.

Intention to create legal relations

Before a court treats a promise as a binding contract, it needs to see that both people actually meant for it to carry legal weight. A promise made in a domestic or social setting is presumed not to meet that standard, unless there is clear evidence otherwise.

The classic case on this point is the English decision in Balfour v Balfour[i]. This case comes from England, not Australia, so it sits outside our own court system entirely. Under the doctrine of precedent, only decisions from higher Australian courts are actually binding here, and an English case cannot bind an Australian judge in the way that a High Court decision does. What it does carry is persuasive authority. Australian law developed directly out of English common law, so English decisions from this time period still shape how Australian courts reason through similar problems, especially in areas like contract law where the two systems share the same foundations. Because no Australian court has ever needed to depart from this reasoning, Balfour v Balfour has simply been absorbed into Australian legal practice over time, taught in every Australian contract law course and cited in Australian judgments as though it were local law, even though it technically is not.

A husband promised to pay his wife a monthly allowance while he worked overseas. When the payments stopped, she tried to enforce the promise as a contract. The court said no. It held that promises made within an ordinary domestic relationship are not presumed to carry legal force.

A promise to keep talking, to meet up, or to stay in touch sits in exactly the same category. It is a social arrangement, not a legal one. This is why ghosting someone cannot be treated as a breach of contract, no matter how sincerely the other person relied on what was said.

Promissory estoppel

A slightly stronger option, though still unlikely to succeed, is promissory estoppel. The High Court expanded this doctrine significantly in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher.[ii]

Here is what actually happened. In 1983, Waltons Stores needed a new store in Nowra and was negotiating a lease with a local property owner, Mr Maher. The two sides worked out the terms through their solicitors, including a tight deadline for construction. Maher signed his copy of the lease and sent it to Waltons "by way of exchange", the usual final step before a lease becomes binding. Waltons never signed its copy back. Around the same time, Waltons quietly had second thoughts about the deal and told its solicitors to slow things down, without ever telling Maher. Believing the deal was done, Maher demolished part of the old building and started construction of the new one. Waltons knew this was happening and still said nothing. By the time it finally pulled out in January 1984, the building was already 40 per cent complete. The High Court held that Waltons could not stay silent while Maher spent real money building something it had asked for, then walk away once construction was underway. It did not matter that no final contract had been signed. Letting Waltons deny responsibility after staying quiet for that long would have been unconscionable.

This case shows exactly what the law actually requires before silence becomes a legal problem. Maher did not just feel let down. He knocked down a building and spent months of labour and money, based on a belief Waltons knew about and deliberately let him keep. That is a concrete, measurable loss, tied to a specific and clear assumption Waltons itself created. Compare that to someone who spent a few weeks texting a match and made a Saturday plan that never happened. The disappointment is real, but there is no demolished building, no signed lease, no financial loss beyond hurt feelings. This is exactly why ghosting falls short of the bar Waltons Stores sets. The case does not prove ghosting can never matter legally. It proves how much would actually have to happen before it could.

For this doctrine to apply, three things generally need to be present. There must be a clear promise. There must be genuine reliance on that promise. And walking away from it must be unconscionable, not just disappointing. Ghosting rarely reaches this bar. The hurt is real, but it is rarely backed by the kind of concrete loss the law requires. No demolished building, no signed lease, no measurable harm beyond disappointment.

Negligent misstatement

A third possible doctrine is negligent misstatement. This applies where someone gives false information to another person, knowing it is likely to be relied on, and that reliance causes real loss. The leading Australian case is Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council.[iii]

Shaddock wanted to buy a corner property in Parramatta in 1973, to redevelop it later. Before buying, their solicitor rang the Parramatta Council and asked if any road widening plans affected the land. He was told no. He then made the same inquiry in writing, using the standard form solicitors used at the time. The Council sent back a certificate with no mention of any road widening at all. Based on this, Shaddock went ahead and bought the property. It turned out the Council actually had an approved road widening plan for that exact land, one that would have taken out a third of it. The Council just never wrote it on the certificate, even though writing it there was their normal practice. The High Court held the Council was liable. It owed a duty of care because it knew solicitors relied on those certificates for serious decisions like buying land, and it stayed silent when it knew the answer mattered.

This case shows what negligent misstatement actually needs. The Council was in a position of authority. It held information nobody else had. Shaddock's solicitor asked a direct, formal, written question specifically so he could rely on the answer to make a financial decision. None of that maps onto a personal relationship. Nobody ghosting someone holds exclusive information the other person is formally relying on for a financial decision, and nobody who gets ghosted is a professional asking a written question in the course of a transaction. This is why the case actually locks the door on using negligent misstatement for ghosting, instead of opening it. It shows the doctrine was built for something entirely different.

This doctrine was built for commercial and financial situations, not personal ones. There is even a modern statutory version of the same idea. Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law bans misleading or deceptive conduct, but only where it happens in trade or commerce.[iv] Ghosting someone in a personal relationship does not meet that threshold either, so both the common law and statute close off this option.

Why the law works this way

Courts have consistently refused to extend these remedies into personal relationships, and this is a deliberate choice, not an oversight. Each doctrine above was built to resolve disputes in business, property, and financial dealings, where both sides generally understand they are entering something binding.

Personal relationships do not work that way. Plans change constantly. Conversations are informal. Most people do not treat a text message the same way they treat a signed lease, and courts know this too. If courts allowed people to sue over every broken social arrangement, the number of cases would be enormous, and the outcomes would be almost impossible to predict. Every cancelled dinner and every unanswered message would become a potential lawsuit, which clearly is not a world anyone wants to live in.

Where the law actually does intervene

Ordinary ghosting does not create a legal remedy, but that changes once someone's conduct escalates beyond simply going quiet.

Repeated unwanted contact, intimidation, or behaviour that makes a person genuinely fearful for their safety can amount to stalking, and may support an apprehended violence order under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).[v] Threatening or harassing messages sent by phone or online can also be a criminal offence under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which covers crimes using a telecommunications service to menace, harass, or offend someone.[vi]

Given how much of this now happens on social media, the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) is also worth knowing about.[vii] It created Australia's Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme, which lets the eSafety Commissioner order the removal of online material meant to cause serious harm to an adult, with penalties if a platform refuses to act. This does not cover ghosting itself, but it does cover the harassment that can sometimes follow it.

Anyone facing this kind of escalation should keep records of the messages involved, and speak to a community legal centre, the police, or the eSafety Commissioner about the options available.

Conclusion

Ghosting causes real distress, but it does not give rise to a legal claim under Australian contract or tort law, and no specific Act deals with it directly. Intention to create legal relations, promissory estoppel, and negligent misstatement all require something ordinary ghosting simply does not have. This is not an accidental gap. It is a line Australian courts have drawn on purpose, to keep the informal parts of our lives separate from the formal obligations the law actually enforces.

──────────────────────────────────────────

References

[i]Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571.

[ii] Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387.

[iii] Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1) (1981) 150 CLR 225.

[iv] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) s 18.

[v] Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13.

[vi] Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 474.17.

[vii] Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) pt 7.