Family lawyers have called for compensation for dozens of couples who were wrongly divorced due to a computer glitch.
Seventy-nine couples had their divorce applications wrongly approved due to a clerical error. Despite the glitch, the High Court ruled on December 19, that the divorces would remain valid.
The issue stemmed from an online system that mistakenly approved 79 divorces filed exactly one year after the couples’ marriages, despite the legal requirement that divorces can only be initiated a year and a day after marriage.
An earlier High Court hearing heard that 79 divorce applications were wrongly approved after an online system failed to detect that they were submitted exactly a year after marriage when the law only allows divorces from a year and a day.
Spear’s Recommended family lawyer, Katie McCann, founder and managing partner of Lowry Legal, welcomed the court’s judgment: ‘Common sense has prevailed. The court’s decision to uphold these divorces spares couples the devastating implications of nullified divorces. A reversal would have voided subsequent marriages, caused legal uncertainty for children born from later relationships, and disrupted financial remedy orders.’
While the ruling resolves the immediate issue, McCann emphasised the need for compensation and systemic reforms to prevent similar errors.
Content from our partners
[See also: Best family lawyers for high-net-worth clients in 2024]
‘Quite frankly ridiculous’
After the High Court ruling in October, lawyers for the Lord Chancellor urged the court to rule that the divorce orders are ‘voidable, as opposed to ‘void’, meaning they would still stand, claiming that voiding the orders would have ‘significant legal and practical consequences’.
McCann said at the time it would be ‘quite frankly ridiculous’ if the ruling did not stand in ‘these circumstances’.
‘So much happens around the time of a divorce that would be affected if these divorces were found not to stand; such as financial final orders, setting out who owns the family home for example. Some parties may be remarried which in effect would mean that they were committing bigamy!’ she said.
McCann added: ‘The list of things that would need to be unravelled is extensive. Let’s hope that sense prevails and the judgement finds that in these unfortunate circumstances an exception can be made and the divorces stand.’
[See also: Why private client lawyers are in prime position to lead top firms]
In a written submission, Sir James Eadie KC said: ‘The undoing of final divorce orders has the consequence that separated couples who were, and thought they were, divorced will be held to still be married.’
‘That has significant legal and practical consequences.’ Sir James added: ‘For the couples concerned, those consequences are likely to be both highly unfortunate and highly unwelcome.’
The judgment will be given in writing at a later date.
Computer says ‘no’ to being divorced
Earlier this year Vardags applied for a divorce granted in error by someone ‘clicking the wrong button’ to be ‘set aside’.
Lawyers at the esteemed law firm had intended to apply for a divorce for another client but a member of staff had accidentally opened the file for another couple, identified as ‘Mr and Mrs Williams’.
[See also: English family law is failing to keep up with changes in society]
Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the family division, rejected the application by Vardags, saying: ‘There is a strong public policy interest in respecting the certainty and finality that flows from a final divorce order and maintaining the status quo that it has established.’
Ayesha Vardag, founder and president of Vardags, has stood by the member of staff who made the mistake and said the judge had made a ‘bad decision’ that effectively meant if ‘the computer says no, you’re divorced’.
