The High Court today ruled that 79 divorces that were incorrectly approved due to a computer error are legally valid, unless any of the 158 respondents involved seeks to argue otherwise before the end of next month.

Handing down judgment, however, the court said the fiasco could have been avoided if HMCTS had investigated the computer problem when first alerted to it. 

The Lord Chancellor v 79 Divorced Couples centres on 79 divorce applications submitted a day before the law allowed and which were wrongly approved when the system did not flag the issue. The lord chancellor applied to the court to make declarations that the marriages were no longer in effect. 

The court heard that several respondents had expressed 'significant distress' regarding the possibility they may not be legally divorced from their former partners.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division, and Her Honour Lynn Roberts, sitting as a deputy high court judge, said at least 11 of the people affected have remarried, others have given notice of intention to remarry, 19 have commenced financial remedy proceedings, and 17 final financial remedy orders have been made by the courts.

A validation error present in the system from April 2022 allowed applications to be made a day early. The fault was discovered in November 2022 when a judge identified a case submitted early and alerted HMCTS. The computer system was fixed and that case dealt with.

In mid-April 2024, a legal adviser found another case submitted a day early and referred it to a judge who alerted HMCTS. A proper search was undertaken and 96 cases which had been submitted a day early were identified. All cases which had not had a final order were stopped. Final orders had been made in 79 cases.

The judges noted that had HMCTS conducted a ‘proper investigation’ in November 2022 when the error was first flagged, ‘it is likely that none, or almost none, of the 79 cases would have had final orders made and the present application would not have been necessary’.

Read more:

In written judgment, Sir Andrew McFarlane said: ‘It is inconceivable that parliament would have intended that the consequences of submitting an application for divorce one day early, which, by administrative/computer error was processed through to a final order of divorce being granted, would be that that final order must automatically be set aside as void and having no legal standing.’

To hold that non-compliance with s3(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 must automatically mean setting aside the final order of divorce would be ‘wholly disproportionate’ and would likely damage public interest, the judgment said.

It added: ‘In imputing the intention of parliament, it must be the case that, the more problematic the outcome of holding that a final order of divorce must be void, the less likely it is that parliament will have intended that outcome.’

Finding the 79 divorces case are voidable but not void, the judges said all 158 respondents will have until the end of January 2025 to set out in a statement whether they wish the court to determine that their final divorce order should be voided.

The judge said: ‘If, at the end of that period, no respondent wishes to argue that the final divorce order in their case should be found to be void, we will make the declarations sought by the lord chancellor in each case. Alternatively, if any of the respondents argues for a different outcome, we will make the declarations in the majority of the cases and consider what directions are necessary to conclude the outstanding cases.’