header-logo header-logo

08 January 2025
Issue: 8099 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Technology , Family
printer mail-detail

Computer says yes in divorce glitch

The High Court has swooped to the rescue of 79 ex-couples, following a colossal computer error that threatened to render their divorce orders void.

Couples who wish to divorce must wait at least a year from the date of their wedding, which is commonly regarded as meaning one year and one day. However, a HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) computer glitch mistakenly allowed the couples to apply for divorce one day early.

At least 11 of the individuals affected had since remarried, while others had given notice of intention to remarry, 19 had commenced financial remedy proceedings, and 17 final financial remedy orders had been made by the courts. It was not known whether any children had been born whose status might be affected.

The Lord Chancellor applied for a declaration that, on the date of the final order, the 79 couples’ marriages no longer subsisted.

Handing down judgment in December, in The Lord Chancellor v 79 Divorced Couples [2024] EWHC 3211 (Fam), the court held the final divorce orders were voidable not void and that, unless any of the 158 individuals sought to argue otherwise before the end of January, the orders were legally valid.

A judge initially spotted the glitch in November 2022 and alerted HMCTS, but a search was not conducted until mid-April 2024 when 96 cases submitted a day early were discovered. Final orders had been made in 79 of these cases.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division, giving the lead judgment, said: ‘It is of note that if HMCTS had conducted a proper investigation in November 2022 when the problem was first drawn to their attention, it is likely that none, or almost none, of the 79 cases would have had final orders made and the present application would not have been necessary.’

Issue: 8099 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Technology , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll