London law firm admits to error but judge says final order cannot be overturned

A couple were divorced by mistake after solicitors at a leading law firm made a computer error – but a senior judge has said it cannot be overturned.

The couple, referred to as Mr and Mrs Williams by the high court, were married for 21 years until they separated in 2023.

Solicitors at the London firm Vardags, headed by Ayesha Vardag, the self-styled “diva of divorce”, used an online portal to mistakenly apply for a final order for the couple, who were still attempting to agree financial arrangements for their split.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the family division, explained lawyers had intended to apply for a divorce for another client “but inadvertently opened the electronic case file in ‘Williams v Williams’ and proceeded to apply for a final order in that case”.

He said solicitors at Vardags, who were representing the wife, used the online portal “without the instruction or authority of their client”. He said the online system operated with “its now customary speed” and granted the order divorcing the Williamses within 21 minutes.

The solicitors realised their mistake two days later and applied to the high court to rescind the final divorce order. They described the error as being simply that of someone at Vardags “clicking the wrong button” and argued that as the final order was applied for by mistake, it should be set aside.

But McFarlane rejected the application and said: “There is a strong public policy interest in respecting the certainty and finality that flows from a final divorce order and maintaining the status quo that it has established.”

I decided to try everything I had ever wanted to do: standup comedy, speaking Spanish, running, swimming and sailing. On the other side of fear, I learned, lay all the best experiences

The silence in the flat was deafening. Having lost almost everything in my divorce, it was now just me in a basement studio flat with black mould. I had no TV, no sofa and the wifi wasn’t set up. I sat at a cheap folding table and made a list. Since my life was no longer going to be the way I had planned – marriage, kids, a dog, a late-Victorian terrace in a country town – I was going to try something else. I was going to do all the things on my “try before you’re 30” bucket list.

It was early 2014 and, having recently turned 32, I had already missed the boat, but I was determined not to let that stop me. I’d spent the past four years living in suburbia and felt as though I was prematurely middle-aged, going to garden centres at weekends and spending most of my time watching TV, tired from a long commute to my job as a communications officer. I had become set in my ways. Now I was back in London – albeit extremely broke – I was ready to try new things.

This impeccably performed, engaging take on Kramer vs Kramer delivers a subtly shaded portrait of current gay lifestyles

This poignant drama is practically a remake of Kramer vs Kramer from 1979 – though this time with two divorcing New York-based dads fighting for custody of their kid instead of K ² ’s traditional pairing of a husband and wife. And like the older Dustin Hoffman-Meryl Streep vehicle , Our Son is a bit soapy and middlebrow, but impeccably performed all-round, led by a trio of terrific turns from Luke Evans and Billy Porter as the two fathers, with winning, winsome support from Christopher Woodley as Owen, their eight-year-old son.

The script, co-written by Peter Nickowitz and director Bill Oliver, delivers an acute, subtly shaded group portrait of current gay lifestyles, from married-with-children types like Nicky (Evans) and Gabriel (Porter), who are monogamous until Gabriel strays without pre-agreement into another’s man’s arms, to older men who never wanted that kind of domesticity, to young ones still having one-night hook-ups out on the scene. And that’s just the guys – there are also some lesbian characters represented, not least Pam (Robin Weigert), Nicky’s family law attorney who is full of good advice.

The statute, which can lead to reproductive coercion in a state that has banned abortion, has recently gained nationwide attention

At six months pregnant, H decided enough was enough. She had endured years of abuse from her husband and had recently discovered he was also physically violent towards her child. She contacted an attorney to help her get a divorce.

But she was stopped short. Her lawyer told her that she could not finalize a divorce in Missouri because she was pregnant. “I just absolutely felt defeated,” she said. H returned to the house she shared with her abuser, sleeping in her child’s room on the floor and continuing to face violence. On the night before she gave birth, she slept in the most secure room in the house: on the tile floor in the basement, with the family’s dogs.

Sur Twitter, le fondateur de Tesla a qualifié ces accusations de "total bullshit", après la publication d'un article de presse.

This is total bs. Sergey and I are friends and were at a party together last night!

I’ve only seen Nicole twice in three years, both times with many other people around. Nothing romantic.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 25, 2022

Call them out on it, I guess. WSJ is supposed to have a high standard for journalism and, right now, they are way sub tabloid.

WSJ should be running stories that actually matter to their readers and have solid factual basis, not third-party random hearsay.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 25, 2022

Le co-fondateur de Google Sergey Brin et Nicole Shanahan lors de la 6e cérémonie annuelle Breakthrough Prize au Ames Research Center de la NASA, en décembre 2017 à Mountain View, Californie.