Judge refuses to Ctrl-Z divorce order made by a misclick
- Reference: 1713286813
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/04/16/accidental_divorce_computer_error/
- Source link:
An employee at Vardags, self-described specialists in high-net-worth marital breakdowns, opened the wrong file when applying for a divorce in His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) online portal.
With a click more potent than Cupid's arrow, the solicitor "issued a final order of divorce in proceedings between Mrs Williams, the applicant wife, and Mr Williams," [1]court papers [PDF] say.
[2]
The digital slip occurred on October 3, and thanks to the system's "now customary speed," as [3]described by Judge Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, marital bonds were finally and totally severed in a mere 21 minutes, less time than most couples spend arguing over what to watch on Netflix.
[4]
[5]
When Vardags realized the blunder two days later, it scrambled to reverse the order. The application was made "without notice to the Husband's solicitors – the Wife's solicitors considered at the time that this was the correct approach given that the Final Order itself had been made without notice."
In the ensuing legal melee, Mr Williams, previously unaware of his sudden single status, received a letter sent by HMCTS the same day as the accidental divorce, stating that he was no longer married. But it was not until October 11, a week later, that he was formally informed of his bachelorhood by his ex-wife's solicitors. Meanwhile, his solicitors entered the fray, demanding that the case be brought before the President of the Family Division to sort out this matrimonial muddle.
[6]
As the courts attempted to untangle this knot, a directionless decree by Deputy District Judge Underhill seemed to resolve the issue by setting aside the divorce order. However, this order was marred by vague wording and questionable legality, leading to further disputes about whether Mr and Mrs Williams were indeed married or divorced.
[7]Sleuths who cracked Zodiac Killer's cipher thank the crowd
[8]Rancher faces prison for trying to breed absolute unit of a sheep
[9]'Chemical cat' on the loose in Japanese city
[10]Olympic-level server tossing contest seeks entrants – warranty voiding guaranteed
Thus it was over to McFarlane, who agreed with the husband's lawyers that there was no authority for setting aside a decree absolute where there had been complete procedural regularity.
He ruled that it was "in the public interest that a final order of divorce should be unimpeachable when 'granted by a court with competent jurisdiction and after compliance with the correct procedural requirements'. A final order made without procedural irregularity should stand for all the world."
He further advised: "If the Wife has a remedy for what has occurred, it is through an action for negligence against her solicitors and not by seeking to set aside the final order."
Ayesha Vardag, head of the law firm, took issue with the ruling, [11]reportedly telling the BBC that the judge's decision boiled down to "the computer says no, you're divorced."
[12]
She described the verdict as a "bad decision" and that the state "should not be divorcing people on the basis of a clerical error," insisting there has to be "intention" on the part of the person divorcing.
"When a mistake is brought to a court's attention, and everyone accepts that a mistake has been made, it obviously has to be undone," she said. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/04/16/ewhc_fam_2024_733.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Zh70@PMR7sC2fuBLePE8ewAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2024/733
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zh70@PMR7sC2fuBLePE8ewAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zh70@PMR7sC2fuBLePE8ewAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zh70@PMR7sC2fuBLePE8ewAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/04/zodiac_killer_code/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/14/rancher_hybrid_sheep/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/13/cat_chemical_vat_japan/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/06/cloudfest_server_tossing/
[11] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68821406
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/bootnotes&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zh70@PMR7sC2fuBLePE8ewAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Well..
We do link to the full judgment if you need some bedtime reading.
C.
Re: More Information Needed!
Could I file divorce papers for Rishi Sunak without his permission?
Other than the prospect of going to prison for fraud, is there anything to stop me doing that?
Re: More Information Needed!
> is there anything to stop me doing that?
Gaining access to Vardags system?
It would seem, you will need to create a case file on their system and place it in the workflow and wait for the system to do its magic…
Re: More Information Needed!
I don't know whether it's still true, but when my wife and I applied for a marriage license there didn't seem to be a requirement to be either one of the parties involved.
AC in case it's still possible...
Computer says 'Yes.'
There's a change, then.
Till death do we part for me, part for you
A “fat-finger error” by a London-based trader at Citigroup that triggered a flash crash across European stock markets could cost the bank at least $50m (£39.8m). The trader was working from home last month when they incorrectly added an extra zero to a trade, Bloomberg reported, quoting “people familiar with the matter”. That split-second mistake, on the 2 May bank holiday, wreaked havoc on markets across Europe, triggering a sell-off that reportedly wiped out as much as €300bn (£256bn) at one point. ["Flash crash set off by ‘fat-fingered’ Citigroup trader could cost $50m", Guardian]
Re: Till death do we part for me, part for you
Some computer software should probably operate under a [1]two-person rule to prevent this kind of craziness. Convenience should not trump double-checks when there is a risk that "soft"-actions (oops!) can't be walked back ... IMHO.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-person_rule
Re: Till death do we part for me, part for you
The _No_Lone_Zone_ has real value!
Presumably they were already 'getting' divorced
If they both had solicitors in the system.
It's not like they went in to pay a parking fine and got made a judge
Re: Presumably they were already 'getting' divorced
Yes, the BBC story says, "Mrs Williams applied for divorce in January 2023"
Re: Presumably they were already 'getting' divorced
"Yes, the BBC story says, "Mrs Williams applied for divorce in January 2023"
Be careful what you wish for.
On the other hand, if there was no financial judgement made before the divorce was finalized, the gent is free and clear of any alimony or loss of any finances to the missus. So silver lining perhaps?
Re: Presumably they were already 'getting' divorced
"On the other hand, if there was no financial judgement made before the divorce was finalized, the gent is free and clear of any alimony or loss of any finances to the missus. So silver lining perhaps?"
Not how it works. The financial arrangements (and child arrangements if they have any) are separate cases from ending the marriage. While it is usual to proceed with them in parallel so they are done by the tine the final order is issued, you do not have to.
The details I've read suggest the husband does very nicely out of this error, since no financial split had been agreed yet and most of the couples' assets are in his name. Hopefully the wife sues Vardags into bankruptcy, as the owner sounds like a nasty piece of work.
If the ancillary relief (== money matters) hearings have not happened then they can be opened, even after a decree absolute -- similarly for matters relating to children. All that a decree absolute really does is to allow the parties to marry again - to new partners.
question....
Does this mean you could pay a solicitor to e-file paperwork in a case and get it settled in your clients' favor without the other side even knowing? What if you're the state? Does this mean the system is flawed and was designed to be abused by the state?
Does this mean the system is flawed and was designed to be abused by the state?
Given that the state created the system, I would say this is very likely
Re: Does this mean the system is flawed and was designed to be abused by the state?
Under the new system you can go to the Post Office and their computer system will divorce you
Re: Does this mean the system is flawed and was designed to be abused by the state?
But then you may run the risk of the computer system getting you sent to prison for something you aren't guilty of.
Yes, I saw something about this in a newspaper somebody was reading a few days ago.
Having worked in IT in a law firm, from my knowledge of the divorce process what has been reported doesn't actually make sense. It simply cannot be the case that somebody came into a Solicitors asking for some advice on defending themselves in court for speeding ended up getting divorced instead accidentally through a wrong keypress.
Broadly speaking in order to obtain a divorce you have to file several kilograms of paperwork, attend hearings etc which used to require a decree Nisi, which is the court declaring that there is no procedural reason that you can't obtain a divorce. There is then a period of haggling about the financial settlement which properly speaking isn't per se part of the divorce process (ie; who wants to keep a particular favourite pet, and various forms of emotional and financial blackmail applied to make the process as traumatic as possible to quasi legally extort the most possible out of the ex partner) before agreeing to make the divorce complete by applying for and receiving a decree absolute which I think is now just called a "final order", which is another casualty of the drive to eliminate any latin derived words used for the last two thousand years without harm in the legal system.
If you applied for a decree absolute without the decree nisi being in place then it'd be rejected.
Therefore what presumably happened was that somebody was in the process of getting a divorce, had already obtained the decree Nisi but hadn't finished with the emotional/financial blackmail part and their Solicitor pressed the "apply for decree absolute" button and it was applied for and granted.
At which point the person objected that they hadn't finished with their sort of legal emotional and financial blackmail and asked the court if they could undo the decree absolute so they could use it as leverage for their extortion scheme. (eg; i'll only divorce you if....) The person being quasi legally blackmailed said they were delighted that it was now all over, and was horrified at the prospect of being subjected to this again, and please don't do that to me. The court (being absolutely delighted to get shot of the case and with no more desire to deal with it than the person being quasi legally blackmailed) said in effect "nope, sue your Solicitor for the mistake if you wanted more money", which explains that comment since otherwise if it was a genuine mistake of the court in granting a decree absolute when they shouldn't have done then they'd surely have reversed it.
The publicity attempt is therefore presumably in the cynical hope that it will build public pressure to reverse that decision, which would fit with press releases which appear to be somewhat misleading from the true state of affairs to the point that one could claim that it's akin to "lying through omission".
That explains a lot! The way I initially read it she was at a fast food ready to order, pressed the wrong touchscreen, and wamo: divorced!
That's how it reads presumably from a press release, but that doesn't actually make sense if you know what the process is; which to be fair most people don't!
she was at a fast food ready to order, pressed the wrong touchscreen, and wamo: divorced!
McDivorce? Do you want fries with that?
Sounds plausible. Thanks for filling in the blanks.
I think you are out of date. Since no fault divorce was introduced in 2022 it is very simple. I filed for divorce under the new procedure as soon as it was introduced in April 2022.
1. apple online
2. have spouse acknowledge receipt of email, otherwise arrange to have papers to be served
3. Wait a few months (there is colling off period)
4. get notified you have conditional order (what used to be called the decreee nisi)
5. Wait a few more weeks
6. Apply for the decree absolute.You get it the same day.
There can be a lot of paperwork with the financial and child arrangements cases, but these are separate and do not have to happen (my ex and I just handled things with informal arrangements).
You are probably right that the applicant was delaying applying for the final order as some sort of outmaneuver, but after three months the other spouse can apply for the final order so it cannot be held up for long which limits its value as a threat. If you want all the details of the process they are here: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/how-to-separate1/getting-a-divorce-or-dissolution/
I saw this earlier this week...
... The wife had already applied for a divorce (hence the case being in the system), so I'm confused as to why the divorce should be undone (if all the paperwork before the court indicates that everything's been resolved and all the tees have been crossed and all the eyes have been dotted, then the system rightly goes "well, I'll accept your request and get a judge to approve it!").
Sounds to me like the solicitors did *someone* a favour with this flub. The divorce is done. If you still need to negotiate terms, you have the chance to do it now, but not as married people anymore. Good luck.
More Information Needed!
This article needs more information. I don't know if I should be outraged for an injustice done or laughing at someone getting their just desserts.
Icon because unsure how to respond.