The first basis for the application was the slip rule which was obviously wrong as it was their mistake not the court's.
Haven't read the whole thing but the wife's legal team don't seem to have covered themselves in glory even after the mistake became known. Still, the Judge's reasoning seems unecessarily binary.
Just read this in the Times. I mean if it was ANY other firm, you’d be feeling sorry for them. Rather than lolling hard and fast that they tend to act for UHNW types and therefore the negligence claim will be immense. Husband in the situation has won the lottery.
That is a mad decision that must surely be reversed on appeal?!
I doubt it, for the sake of certainty in other cases. Don't want to encourage others to make hopeless challenges to divorces on the grounds of mistake and clog the system up in dismissals.
Basically, solicitors become the whipping boys pt 357
In effect, “You could not possibly have a system that corrects mistakes when solicitors acted without instructions “
Riiiight so bazzers never ever act outside instructions, or judges never act outside the rules, oh no, that never happens
So it’s “do as I say not as I do “ pt 8,456
On a more serious note, the judge seems to place a disproportionate load of reliance on the inconvenience to the Husband re a unanticipated event But he didn’t anticipate being finally divorced for months cos they were clearly tussling on money . How the feck is he inconvenienced by something he wasn’t planning on happening???
Oh and lol hard at the idea that a future “Husband “ be able to rely on this reasoning if another “Wife’s “solicitor acts without instructions and obtains an order by mistake
Imagine the balls needed to give that advice to a future client!!!
If there is a negligence claim I wonder if the husband will give evidence in support of the wife as to how he was about to give up and hand over every penny to her. So they both end up with one of everything?
The easy answer would have been for the husband to agree to the application, but as he wanted a divorce, just apparently not then for tax reasons, he could simply resist, and then seek all his losses from SWMBO.
0
2
Awks.
0
2
That is a mad decision that must surely be reversed on appeal?!
0
2
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/733.html
0
2
The first basis for the application was the slip rule which was obviously wrong as it was their mistake not the court's.
Haven't read the whole thing but the wife's legal team don't seem to have covered themselves in glory even after the mistake became known. Still, the Judge's reasoning seems unecessarily binary.
1
1
Just read this in the Times. I mean if it was ANY other firm, you’d be feeling sorry for them. Rather than lolling hard and fast that they tend to act for UHNW types and therefore the negligence claim will be immense. Husband in the situation has won the lottery.
2
1
I doubt it, for the sake of certainty in other cases. Don't want to encourage others to make hopeless challenges to divorces on the grounds of mistake and clog the system up in dismissals.
0
1
WTF. You can't have a lawyer negligently divorce someone and let the decision stand. They had no authority to make the application.
0
1
But the Court had the authority to make the order...
0
1
“the judge said there’s nothing he can do about it”
er bollocks m88, you’re the judge
grow some balls and make the order
0
1
if the court had the authority to make the order then it inherently has the authority to unmake it
0
1
Courts set aside orders all the time, even final orders, especially where the application is based on a lawyer having cocked up.
0
1
True. But the couple, it seems did want a divorce. The issue was the cash, which Vardags PI can cover.
If they were divorced and didn't want it, that would be diff.
0
1
it's worth reading the full judgment
0
1
Much as I acknowledge the need to
A. Have certainty and
B lol effing hard at Vardags and their Pi cover
Basically, solicitors become the whipping boys pt 357
In effect, “You could not possibly have a system that corrects mistakes when solicitors acted without instructions “
Riiiight so bazzers never ever act outside instructions, or judges never act outside the rules, oh no, that never happens
So it’s “do as I say not as I do “ pt 8,456
On a more serious note, the judge seems to place a disproportionate load of reliance on the inconvenience to the Husband re a unanticipated event But he didn’t anticipate being finally divorced for months cos they were clearly tussling on money . How the feck is he inconvenienced by something he wasn’t planning on happening???
There is zero on the inconvenience to the wife
Stinks of sexism TBH
1
1
‘Just read this in the Times. I mean if it was ANY other firm, you’d be feeling sorry for them. Rather than lolling hard and fast‘
+1
Smug snake oil salesmen get comeuppance
Ooh we’re high end, we’re high end
<makes mistake one man band dabbler operating above kebab shop would be ashamed of>
0
1
Oh and lol hard at the idea that a future “Husband “ be able to rely on this reasoning if another “Wife’s “solicitor acts without instructions and obtains an order by mistake
Imagine the balls needed to give that advice to a future client!!!
0
0
6
1
Have YOU been accidentally divorced?
0
1
If there is a negligence claim I wonder if the husband will give evidence in support of the wife as to how he was about to give up and hand over every penny to her. So they both end up with one of everything?
0
1
The easy answer would have been for the husband to agree to the application, but as he wanted a divorce, just apparently not then for tax reasons, he could simply resist, and then seek all his losses from SWMBO.
1
1
We’ve come to court by mistake
Join the discussion