- The couple were married for 21 years before separating late last year.
- Attorneys at Vardags Law Firm Mistakenly Filed Final Divorce Application Online
- But the judge said the order was valid and the couple was legitimately divorced.
A couple was wrongly divorced after lawyers entered incorrect details into an online system, and a judge insists nothing can be done to fix it.
Known as ‘Mr and Mrs Williams’ in the High Court proceedings, the couple had been married for 21 years before separating early last year and were in the midst of financial negotiations when the mistake occurred.
Vardags’ attorneys, representing the wife, wanted to seek a final divorce order for another client, but instead improperly opened the Williams’ electronic case file. The times reports.
The firm was founded by Ayesha Vardag, nicknamed the ‘Diva of Divorce’, who has worked for a number of 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 he helped secure a £64 million settlement in her 2017 divorce from businessman Khoo Kay Peng.
A couple was wrongly divorced after lawyers entered incorrect data into an online system, but a judge refused to overturn the decision.
Divorce attorney Ayesha Vardag, who has represented several high-profile and high-net-worth clients, founded the law firm at the center of a dispute over erroneous divorce filings.
In the Williams case, Vardags argued that the final divorce order had been entered without his client’s consent and for that reason should not stand.
The company realized the mistake two days later and asked the High Court to quash the order.
But Sir Andrew McFarlane, chairman of the family division, remained unmoved by their argument and said the divorce remained valid, adding there was “a strong public policy interest in respecting the certainty and finality that flows from a divorce order.” definitive”.
Vardag argued that there needed to be intent on the part of the couple and the ruling was the equivalent of “the computer says no, you’re divorced.”
He added: “When the court is informed that it was a mistake… obviously it has to be undone.”