Lawyers’ computer error means estranged couple officially divorced – and High Court says there’s nothing they can do to fix it
- The couple had been married for 21 years before splitting at the end of last year
- Lawyers at the Vardags law firm mistakenly submitted a final divorce application online
- But the judge said the order was valid and the couple is legally divorced
<!–
<!–
<!– <!–
<!–
<!–
<!–
A couple found themselves wrongly divorced after lawyers entered the wrong details into an online system – and a judge insists there is nothing that can be done to put it right.
Known as ‘Mr and Mrs Williams’ in High Court proceedings, the couple had been married for 21 years before separating early last year and were in the middle of negotiating finances when the failure occurred.
Attorneys at Vardags, who represented the wife, had wanted to file for a final divorce for another client, but instead mistakenly opened the electronic case file for the Williamses. The times reports.
The firm was founded by Ayesha Vardag, dubbed the ‘divorce diva’, who has acted for numerous high net worth and high profile clients, from Qatari princes, Malaysian millionaires and business tycoons to international footballers, celebrities and royalty.
They include former Malaysian beauty queen Pauline Chai, whom she helped secure a £64m settlement in her 2017 divorce from businessman Khoo Kay Peng.
A couple were wrongly divorced after lawyers entered the wrong details into an online system – but the judge has refused to overturn the decision
Divorce lawyer Ayesha Vardag, who has represented several high-value and high-profile clients, founded the law firm amid the controversy over the faulty divorce filing
In the Williamses’ case, Vardags argued that the final divorce decree had been entered without the consent of their client and therefore should not stand.
The company had noticed the error two days later and applied to the High Court to overturn the order.
But Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division, remained unmoved by their argument and said the divorce was still valid, adding that there was “a strong public policy interest in respecting the certainty and finality of a final divorce decree. “
Vardag argued that there had to be intentions on the part of the couple and the ruling was equivalent to ‘the computer says no, you are divorced’.
She added: ‘When it is brought to our attention that it was a mistake, of course it has to be regretted.’