header-logo header-logo

Computer says yes in divorce glitch

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

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

London promotion underscores firm’s investment in white collar and investigations

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Private client team strengthened by partner appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll