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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll