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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
back-to-top-scroll