4 ms·

I see where the judge is coming from, but hopefully they were able to get this fixed before it started affecting their tax or benefits status. Edit: looks like

by sp332 2y ago

I see where the judge is coming from, but hopefully they were able to get this fixed before it started affecting their tax or benefits status. Edit: looks like I misread about the fixing it part. Still, I wonder what the situation would look like if a couple were legally divorced for only a couple of weeks.

csours 2y ago
I really don't see where the judge is coming from. How would the judge expect this to be resolved?
- sp332 2y ago
  I assumed getting married again?
- galangalalgol 2y ago
  Probably expects Vardag's client to sue them for losses. Honestly, accidentally filing for the divorce of a client you were supposed to be preventing the divorce of is pretty bad. It may be a huge firm, but that ought to lighten their pockets quite a bit, and someone will probably lose a job.
  - zimpenfish 2y ago
    > you were supposed to be preventing the divorce of I don't think they were preventing, per se, as much as "wanting to negotiate on behalf of Mrs Williams to get the most out of Mr Williams" (who is presumably happy with this accident because it avoids all that faff since Mrs Williams, I assume, has no negotiating position now they're actually divorced.)
    - graemep 2y ago
      That is not how the system works in the UK. the financial arrangements are a separate case from the divorce itself (as a child arrangements) and can take place from any time after the conditional order (what used to be called the decree nisi) is made onwards (including after the divorce is completed by the final order).
      - CRConrad 2y ago
        But surely not agreeing to the divorce in the first place can be used as pressure in the financial case.
        graemep 2y ago
        Possibly, but you cannot delay long. If the spouse who applied for the divorce does not ask for the final order within three months of the first date they could, then the other spouse can apply for the final order.
      - zimpenfish 2y ago
        > the financial arrangements are a separate case from the divorce itself I'm guessing that's things like child care, handling of pre-nups, 50/50 split of main domicile, etc. but doesn't cover "extras" like boats, other houses, etc.? Which is why people hire expensive lawyers like the ones in the story for negotiating their divorce settlements...
        graemep 2y ago
        It covers everything. The divorce case itself is ONLY the ending of the marriage and it cannot be contested except on very narrow grounds (wrong jurisdiction or case already in progress)
- ralferoo 2y ago
  Maybe the judge doesn't see the need for this to be resolved. The lawyers for the party who didn't want the divorce, but had been given the authority to represent the client, submitted the request for divorce. The other party agreed. The divorce was finalised. All done. The lawyers who requested the divorce want to cancel it, but there's no legal process for doing that, given that they instigated it, had the authority to act on their client's behalf and there was no administrative mistake made by the court. Especially as the guy is perfectly happy with the outcome, under what basis could the court rescind the divorce and compel him to become re-married? Even more so when the outcome is clearly that they will ultimately end up divorced anyway (or else they wouldn't have engaged the divorce lawyers) and the only issue is about the terms of the settlement between the two parties.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > under what basis could the court rescind the divorce and compel him to become re-married? They wouldn't really compel him to become re-married, he'd just never have been un-married in the first place.
- andrewaylett 2y ago
  The affected couple were in the process of getting a divorce, but reaching the stage where it's finalised takes time and negotiation. It seems that one of the parties is quite happy not to have needed to go through this phase. I'd hope that even though this error leaves the couple divorced earlier than expected, it won't mean that the former-wife will forfeit her right to whatever support she should be able to expect.
hbrav 2y ago
The problem, if you read to the end, is that one half of the former couple is very happy with this outcome, and the other half is very much not.
- akdor1154 2y ago
  And it looks like the disagreement is over financial arrangements, not so much whether they want to remain a loving couple.
guitarbill 2y ago
It seems like the husband was quite ok with the accident, hence the ruling: > Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable. It isn't like two other random people that didn't want to be were accidentally divorced.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > It isn't like two other random people that didn't want to be were accidentally divorced. Arguably, yes, that is exactly what happened here: If the lawyer intended to do this for some other couple and only did it for this one by mistake, then the couple that were divorced now are the "two other random people". (And as for "didn't want to be", isn't that what this whole system with preliminary application, waiting period, and final application is for? As long as you haven't made the final application, then no, it isn't regarded as, well, final that you really want to go through with it.)

by sp332 2y ago

csours 2y ago

I really don't see where the judge is coming from. How would the judge expect this to be resolved?

sp332 2y ago
I assumed getting married again?
galangalalgol 2y ago
Probably expects Vardag's client to sue them for losses. Honestly, accidentally filing for the divorce of a client you were supposed to be preventing the divorce of is pretty bad. It may be a huge firm, but that ought to lighten their pockets quite a bit, and someone will probably lose a job.
- zimpenfish 2y ago
  > you were supposed to be preventing the divorce of I don't think they were preventing, per se, as much as "wanting to negotiate on behalf of Mrs Williams to get the most out of Mr Williams" (who is presumably happy with this accident because it avoids all that faff since Mrs Williams, I assume, has no negotiating position now they're actually divorced.)
  - graemep 2y ago
    That is not how the system works in the UK. the financial arrangements are a separate case from the divorce itself (as a child arrangements) and can take place from any time after the conditional order (what used to be called the decree nisi) is made onwards (including after the divorce is completed by the final order).
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      But surely not agreeing to the divorce in the first place can be used as pressure in the financial case.
      - graemep 2y ago
        Possibly, but you cannot delay long. If the spouse who applied for the divorce does not ask for the final order within three months of the first date they could, then the other spouse can apply for the final order.
    - zimpenfish 2y ago
      > the financial arrangements are a separate case from the divorce itself I'm guessing that's things like child care, handling of pre-nups, 50/50 split of main domicile, etc. but doesn't cover "extras" like boats, other houses, etc.? Which is why people hire expensive lawyers like the ones in the story for negotiating their divorce settlements...
      - graemep 2y ago
        It covers everything. The divorce case itself is ONLY the ending of the marriage and it cannot be contested except on very narrow grounds (wrong jurisdiction or case already in progress)
ralferoo 2y ago
Maybe the judge doesn't see the need for this to be resolved. The lawyers for the party who didn't want the divorce, but had been given the authority to represent the client, submitted the request for divorce. The other party agreed. The divorce was finalised. All done. The lawyers who requested the divorce want to cancel it, but there's no legal process for doing that, given that they instigated it, had the authority to act on their client's behalf and there was no administrative mistake made by the court. Especially as the guy is perfectly happy with the outcome, under what basis could the court rescind the divorce and compel him to become re-married? Even more so when the outcome is clearly that they will ultimately end up divorced anyway (or else they wouldn't have engaged the divorce lawyers) and the only issue is about the terms of the settlement between the two parties.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > under what basis could the court rescind the divorce and compel him to become re-married? They wouldn't really compel him to become re-married, he'd just never have been un-married in the first place.
andrewaylett 2y ago
The affected couple were in the process of getting a divorce, but reaching the stage where it's finalised takes time and negotiation. It seems that one of the parties is quite happy not to have needed to go through this phase. I'd hope that even though this error leaves the couple divorced earlier than expected, it won't mean that the former-wife will forfeit her right to whatever support she should be able to expect.

hbrav 2y ago

The problem, if you read to the end, is that one half of the former couple is very happy with this outcome, and the other half is very much not.

akdor1154 2y ago
And it looks like the disagreement is over financial arrangements, not so much whether they want to remain a loving couple.

guitarbill 2y ago

It seems like the husband was quite ok with the accident, hence the ruling: > Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable. It isn't like two other random people that didn't want to be were accidentally divorced.

CRConrad 2y ago
> It isn't like two other random people that didn't want to be were accidentally divorced. Arguably, yes, that is exactly what happened here: If the lawyer intended to do this for some other couple and only did it for this one by mistake, then the couple that were divorced now are the "two other random people". (And as for "didn't want to be", isn't that what this whole system with preliminary application, waiting period, and final application is for? As long as you haven't made the final application, then no, it isn't regarded as, well, final that you really want to go through with it.)