Solicitors’ computer error leaves estranged couple officially DIVORCED – and High Court says there’s nothing they can do to fix it
- The couple was married for 21 years before splitting late last year
- Lawyers from the Vardags law firm accidentally filed a final divorce petition online
- But the judge said the order was valid and the couple is legally divorced
A couple was wrongly divorced after lawyers entered the wrong details into an online system. A judge insists nothing can be done to fix this.
The couple were known in the High Court proceedings as ‘Mr and Mrs Williams’ and were married for 21 years before separating early last year. They were in the middle of negotiating finances when the error occurred.
Lawyers at Vardags, who represented the woman, had wanted to apply for a final divorce decree for another client, but instead mistakenly opened the electronic file for the Williamses. The times reports.
The firm was founded by Ayesha Vardag, dubbed the ‘Diva of Divorce’, who has acted for a range of wealthy and high-profile clients, from Qatari princes, Malaysian millionaires and business magnates to international footballers, celebrities and royalty.
Among them is former Malaysian beauty queen Pauline Chai, for whom she helped secure a £64 million settlement during her 2017 divorce from businessman Khoo Kay Peng.
A couple were wrongly divorced after lawyers entered the wrong details into an online system, but a judge has refused to overturn the decision
Divorce attorney Ayesha Vardag, who has represented several wealthy and high-profile clients, founded the law firm in the midst of a row over the erroneous divorce filing
In the Williamses’ case, Vardags argued that the final divorce order had been issued without their client’s consent and should therefore not stand.
The company noticed the mistake two days later and filed an application in the Supreme Court to quash the order.
But Sir Andrew McFarlane, chairman of the family division, was unmoved by their argument and said the divorce still stands. He added that there was “a strong public interest in respecting the certainty and finality resulting from a final divorce order.”
Vardag argued that there was intent on the part of the couple and that the statement was the equivalent of ‘the computer says no, you are divorced’.
She added: ‘If it is brought to the attention of the court that it was a mistake… obviously it should be overturned.’