5 ms·

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

by csours 2y ago

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.

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

by 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.