"The Law" is an arse...
Discussion
ATG said:
Aside from getting sued t'fook and having to make a big claim on their insurance, the reputational damage is going to be significant. This is the one thing these plonkers are supposed to be able to do; help wealthy people fleece each other as they divorce in return for exorbitant fees. Dropping a b
k like this and then making sure to maximise publicity by giving the president of the High Court's Family Division the opportunity to take the piss out of you in public ... what a bunch of clowns.
Quite!k like this and then making sure to maximise publicity by giving the president of the High Court's Family Division the opportunity to take the piss out of you in public ... what a bunch of clowns.Countdown said:
....or more specifically in this case the Judge.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68821406
Wtf is the point of not setting aside the decision when it was obviously a mistake?
From Diva of Divorce to Divy of Divorce.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68821406
Wtf is the point of not setting aside the decision when it was obviously a mistake?
Finally a divorce case where the only winners are the former husband and wife.
Going to be expensive for the law firm.
Edit
Lots of posters seemingly not grasping what can reasonably be inferred here.
The couple were divorcing anyway. (We’re told that)
No settlement had been reached. (We infer)
Because
The former wife wished to undo the divorce (she had not agreed a settlement that stood to benefit her)
The former husband did not wish to do so (he had not agreed a settlement and believed any that would be reached stood to disbenefit him)
Seems to me, if the divorce cannot be undone, the lawyers probably need to compensate their client (the wife) to the value of whatever the likely settlement would have been.
Going to be expensive for the law firm.
Edit
Lots of posters seemingly not grasping what can reasonably be inferred here.
The couple were divorcing anyway. (We’re told that)
No settlement had been reached. (We infer)
Because
The former wife wished to undo the divorce (she had not agreed a settlement that stood to benefit her)
The former husband did not wish to do so (he had not agreed a settlement and believed any that would be reached stood to disbenefit him)
Seems to me, if the divorce cannot be undone, the lawyers probably need to compensate their client (the wife) to the value of whatever the likely settlement would have been.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Thursday 18th April 09:55
Lots of incorrect information on this thread.
An application for divorce (formerly and still commonly known as a divorce petition) is made by one party to the court, and the court issues that divorce application. Presuming that application is not contested in any way (contesting a divorce is very rare, but does sometimes happen), the court will grant the conditional order of divorce (formerly known as decree nisi). After a passage of six weeks and a day, the final order of divorce (formerly decree absolute) can be applied for which is when the parties are legally divorced.
The error in this case (or perhaps more properly, the unintended step - it is not procedurally wrong, it was just not on the instructions of the wife) was the application for the final order. Usually where the parties have not agree (or the court has not determined) how they are to divide their finances, the parties will agree not to make an application for the final order of divorce.
That is not because the final order of divorce prevents claims againt one another (under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) in respect of finances - it does not - but it can impact other rights. The most obvious/common impact is in respect of spousal pension rights. If a party with pension rights dies before a final order in respect of the finances is made, but after the final order of divorce, the other party may 'lose out' because they will no longer benefit from a spouses pension (because they are no longer a spouse) and then will not be able to seek a pension sharing order (because their former spouse is deceased).
The suggestion by various posters above, that the fact of the final order of divorce prevents the court from dealing with finanical remedy claims is not correct. The court can still deal with those claims, and coud deal with those claims upon an application for finanical remedies, even if that applicaiton was made after the final order of divorce.
An application for divorce (formerly and still commonly known as a divorce petition) is made by one party to the court, and the court issues that divorce application. Presuming that application is not contested in any way (contesting a divorce is very rare, but does sometimes happen), the court will grant the conditional order of divorce (formerly known as decree nisi). After a passage of six weeks and a day, the final order of divorce (formerly decree absolute) can be applied for which is when the parties are legally divorced.
The error in this case (or perhaps more properly, the unintended step - it is not procedurally wrong, it was just not on the instructions of the wife) was the application for the final order. Usually where the parties have not agree (or the court has not determined) how they are to divide their finances, the parties will agree not to make an application for the final order of divorce.
That is not because the final order of divorce prevents claims againt one another (under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) in respect of finances - it does not - but it can impact other rights. The most obvious/common impact is in respect of spousal pension rights. If a party with pension rights dies before a final order in respect of the finances is made, but after the final order of divorce, the other party may 'lose out' because they will no longer benefit from a spouses pension (because they are no longer a spouse) and then will not be able to seek a pension sharing order (because their former spouse is deceased).
The suggestion by various posters above, that the fact of the final order of divorce prevents the court from dealing with finanical remedy claims is not correct. The court can still deal with those claims, and coud deal with those claims upon an application for finanical remedies, even if that applicaiton was made after the final order of divorce.
Jinx said:
Normally the only winners in a divorce are the lawyers - nice for them to be the ones to (most likely) have to pay out.
Being a touch cynical I do wonder if the lawyers wanted the divorce set aside so they could generate £££ from dragging the proceedings out with protracted letter writing etc. Jinx said:
Normally the only winners in a divorce are the lawyers.
The vast majority of marriages end in divorce so you could expand you point to say,"Normally, the only winners in marriage are the lawyers".
Since marriage isn't compulsory you'd wonder why people still keep doing it....
soprano said:
Lots of incorrect information on this thread.
An application for divorce (formerly and still commonly known as a divorce petition) is made by one party to the court, and the court issues that divorce application. Presuming that application is not contested in any way (contesting a divorce is very rare, but does sometimes happen), the court will grant the conditional order of divorce (formerly known as decree nisi). After a passage of six weeks and a day, the final order of divorce (formerly decree absolute) can be applied for which is when the parties are legally divorced.
The error in this case (or perhaps more properly, the unintended step - it is not procedurally wrong, it was just not on the instructions of the wife) was the application for the final order. Usually where the parties have not agree (or the court has not determined) how they are to divide their finances, the parties will agree not to make an application for the final order of divorce.
That is not because the final order of divorce prevents claims againt one another (under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) in respect of finances - it does not - but it can impact other rights. The most obvious/common impact is in respect of spousal pension rights. If a party with pension rights dies before a final order in respect of the finances is made, but after the final order of divorce, the other party may 'lose out' because they will no longer benefit from a spouses pension (because they are no longer a spouse) and then will not be able to seek a pension sharing order (because their former spouse is deceased).
The suggestion by various posters above, that the fact of the final order of divorce prevents the court from dealing with finanical remedy claims is not correct. The court can still deal with those claims, and coud deal with those claims upon an application for finanical remedies, even if that applicaiton was made after the final order of divorce.
Yes agreedAn application for divorce (formerly and still commonly known as a divorce petition) is made by one party to the court, and the court issues that divorce application. Presuming that application is not contested in any way (contesting a divorce is very rare, but does sometimes happen), the court will grant the conditional order of divorce (formerly known as decree nisi). After a passage of six weeks and a day, the final order of divorce (formerly decree absolute) can be applied for which is when the parties are legally divorced.
The error in this case (or perhaps more properly, the unintended step - it is not procedurally wrong, it was just not on the instructions of the wife) was the application for the final order. Usually where the parties have not agree (or the court has not determined) how they are to divide their finances, the parties will agree not to make an application for the final order of divorce.
That is not because the final order of divorce prevents claims againt one another (under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) in respect of finances - it does not - but it can impact other rights. The most obvious/common impact is in respect of spousal pension rights. If a party with pension rights dies before a final order in respect of the finances is made, but after the final order of divorce, the other party may 'lose out' because they will no longer benefit from a spouses pension (because they are no longer a spouse) and then will not be able to seek a pension sharing order (because their former spouse is deceased).
The suggestion by various posters above, that the fact of the final order of divorce prevents the court from dealing with finanical remedy claims is not correct. The court can still deal with those claims, and coud deal with those claims upon an application for finanical remedies, even if that applicaiton was made after the final order of divorce.
The other thing it may potentially affect is transfers of assets due to loss of spousal transfers capital gains tax exemptions.
Post-matrimonial assets will fall into a different pool, though that could be post separation as much as post divorce, so how much is gained from an early divorce is questionable.
JagLover said:
Yes agreed
The other thing it may potentially affect is transfers of assets due to loss of spousal transfers capital gains tax exemptions.
Post-matrimonial assets will fall into a different pool, though that could be post separation as much as post divorce, so how much is gained from an early divorce is questionable.
Agreed on both, although I think in respect of CGT post April 2023, there is no time limit on no gain/loss transfers upon a formal divorce agreement, so unlikely to have an impact in this case - I am not an accountant so not 100pc on that.The other thing it may potentially affect is transfers of assets due to loss of spousal transfers capital gains tax exemptions.
Post-matrimonial assets will fall into a different pool, though that could be post separation as much as post divorce, so how much is gained from an early divorce is questionable.
PlywoodPascal said:
Panamax said:
The vast majority of marriages end in divorce so you could expand you point to say,
"Normally, the only winners in marriage are the lawyers".
Since marriage isn't compulsory you'd wonder why people still keep doing it....
No they don’t, under 50% end in divorce "Normally, the only winners in marriage are the lawyers".
Since marriage isn't compulsory you'd wonder why people still keep doing it....
PlywoodPascal said:
No they don’t, under 50% end in divorce
Check the statistics. Over the years/decades it's typically been over 50% ending in divorce. It happens the divorce rate has fallen slightly in recent years although still getting on for half of all marriages. Whether that trend will continue remains to be seen.Panamax said:
PlywoodPascal said:
No they don’t, under 50% end in divorce
Check the statistics. Over the years/decades it's typically been over 50% ending in divorce. It happens the divorce rate has fallen slightly in recent years although still getting on for half of all marriages. Whether that trend will continue remains to be seen.PlywoodPascal said:
Panamax said:
PlywoodPascal said:
No they don’t, under 50% end in divorce
Check the statistics. Over the years/decades it's typically been over 50% ending in divorce. It happens the divorce rate has fallen slightly in recent years although still getting on for half of all marriages. Whether that trend will continue remains to be seen.Panamax said:
PlywoodPascal said:
No they don’t, under 50% end in divorce
Check the statistics. Over the years/decades it's typically been over 50% ending in divorce. It happens the divorce rate has fallen slightly in recent years although still getting on for half of all marriages. Whether that trend will continue remains to be seen.geeks said:
In any case, just over 50% is still not a vast majority.
The statistics used to be "two thirds of marriages ending in divorce with second and subsequent marriages more vulnerable than the first". It must be a great comfort for those with "traditional values" to know that around half of marriages now actually work out OK.
Panamax said:
geeks said:
In any case, just over 50% is still not a vast majority.
The statistics used to be "two thirds of marriages ending in divorce with second and subsequent marriages more vulnerable than the first". It must be a great comfort for those with "traditional values" to know that around half of marriages now actually work out OK.
Panamax said:
The statistics used to be "two thirds of marriages ending in divorce with second and subsequent marriages more vulnerable than the first".
It must be a great comfort for those with "traditional values" to know that around half of marriages now actually work out OK.
May I ask where the quote about two thirds of marriages ending in divorce etc has come from?It must be a great comfort for those with "traditional values" to know that around half of marriages now actually work out OK.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff