"The Law" is an arse...
Discussion
....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?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68821406
Wtf is the point of not setting aside the decision when it was obviously a mistake?
This is a law firm that made a mistake that's going to be sued who is trying desperately to cover their arse hoping for some sympathy and PR, as is their want.
Their system, their application, their piss poor processes and inadequate supervision.
The judge has a valid application from people where the wife gave general consent for them to act.
They acted.
The solicitors should burn. You're falling for their pathetic attempts to make light of their incredibly clear direction and actions through their own choices.
Their system, their application, their piss poor processes and inadequate supervision.
The judge has a valid application from people where the wife gave general consent for them to act.
They acted.
The solicitors should burn. You're falling for their pathetic attempts to make light of their incredibly clear direction and actions through their own choices.
macron said:
The solicitors should burn. You're falling for their pathetic attempts to make light of their incredibly clear direction and actions through their own choices.
Yes, it makes no sense blaming the judge for this. The solicitors made a big mistake and remain responsible for unwinding it.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?
Proper decision is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/733....https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68821406
Wtf is the point of not setting aside the decision when it was obviously a mistake?
Makes a lot of sense for me, you can't sit in some kind of Schrodinger's divorce. Finality is important*.
*Although I do think some legal types take that autistically far - see e.g. Denning on Birmingham Six
BikeBikeBIke said:
So wait. A couple were accidentally divorced and then the wife tried to get it cancelled but the Husband insisted on going through with it (as did the Judge)???
Makes for an awkward conversation around the breakfast table.
They were half way through divorce proceedings already. If they were having breakfast in the same room, the husband would have been dancing round the table, flicking the Vs at his now ex-wife and roaring with laughter.Makes for an awkward conversation around the breakfast table.
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.
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.The judge also makes it clear that this wasn't a "mouse mis-click" - the solicitors would have gone through screen after screen with the names and case number clearly shown and a "are you really sure?" prompt.
The solicitors are arses, not the law in this case
Plus, not obviously a mistake. She had given the solicitors power to act on her behalf. What if someone just gets cold feet after the fact and tries to claim "well, I didn't give them consent for that specific thing"?
The solicitors are arses, not the law in this case
Plus, not obviously a mistake. She had given the solicitors power to act on her behalf. What if someone just gets cold feet after the fact and tries to claim "well, I didn't give them consent for that specific thing"?
Edited by wisbech on Tuesday 16th April 04:58
Edited by wisbech on Tuesday 16th April 04:59
wisbech said:
The judge also makes it clear that this wasn't a "mouse mis-click" - the solicitors would have gone through screen after screen with the names and case number clearly shown and a "are you really sure?" prompt.
The solicitors are arses, not the law in this case
Plus, not obviously a mistake. She had given the solicitors power to act on her behalf. What if someone just gets cold feet after the fact and tries to claim "well, I didn't give them consent for that specific thing"?
Would it will have been given to an office junior to do?The solicitors are arses, not the law in this case
Plus, not obviously a mistake. She had given the solicitors power to act on her behalf. What if someone just gets cold feet after the fact and tries to claim "well, I didn't give them consent for that specific thing"?
Edited by wisbech on Tuesday 16th April 04:58
Edited by wisbech on Tuesday 16th April 04:59
768 said:
Perhaps. I'm not sure it's them that's been burned though, as much as it's difficult to find too much sympathy with someone being granted an unexpectedly quick divorce.
Not until they are sued by their clients and we find out how much more.cash can be wasted on them had they actually done the job properly. The SRA will have a field day irrespective of the financial consequences.BikeBikeBIke said:
So wait. A couple were accidentally divorced and then the wife tried to get it cancelled but the Husband insisted on going through with it (as did the Judge)???
Makes for an awkward conversation around the breakfast table.
No- she wanted it delayed & drawn out rather than expedited unexpectedly quickly.Makes for an awkward conversation around the breakfast table.
She presumably doesn't care about lower legal fees (if she even has to pay after this whoopsie). One might wonder what exactly her problem is, although there is the possibility she wanted to prolong twisting the knife for maximum spite & vindictiveness.
Biggy Stardust said:
One might wonder what exactly her problem is, although there is the possibility she wanted to prolong twisting the knife for maximum spite & vindictiveness.
Presumably the ex-husband wanted to move on and the ex-wife wanted to make it as difficult for him as possible unless he gave in to significant demands.Stinking business, but in this case an absolute result. The greedy ex-wife and the incompetent parasitic law firm deserve each other.
hidetheelephants said:
Bit confused; woman who applied for a divorce gets it a bit faster than expected has 'buyers remorse'? Or because it's finalised she can't rinse the now ex-husband? That's what PI cover is for I guess.
The latter I think.I think it means they were divorced without the Financial Consent Order being in place, though not clear why that would benefit the husband, who is presumably the wealthier party.
The only thing I can think of is that post matrimonial assets are treated differently and that might benefit him.
JagLover said:
hidetheelephants said:
Bit confused; woman who applied for a divorce gets it a bit faster than expected has 'buyers remorse'? Or because it's finalised she can't rinse the now ex-husband? That's what PI cover is for I guess.
The latter I think.I think it means they were divorced without the Financial Consent Order being in place, though not clear why that would benefit the husband, who is presumably the wealthier party.
The only thing I can think of is that post matrimonial assets are treated differently and that might benefit him.
Collectingbrass said:
You can't get an Decree Absolute without the Consent Order. It strikes me that what was probably uploaded was either a draft order the Wife hadn't signed off on, or she had signed off on it then her friends got to her and she's tried for more, far too late. Either way, sucks to be the Wife, sucks to be the lawyers and the husband should go and buy a lottery ticket.
You can, because I have done it 
A quick google search brings up this
https://www.crispandco.com/site/services/divorce/d...
So if you planning to hand over assets, or split pensions, you should have a Financial consent order in place before Decree Absolute. If you have split everything already and do not want to apply for one you can still go ahead and divorce.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 16th April 14:22
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff