Solicitors’ computer error leaves estranged couple officially DIVORCED – and High Court says there’s nothing they can do to fix it

A couple found themselves being erroneously divorced after lawyers entered the wrong details into an online system – and a judge insists there’s nothing that can be done to fix it.

Known as ‘Mr and Mrs Williams’ in High Court proceedings, the couple had been married for 21 years before separating at the beginning of last year and were in the throes of negotiating finances when the mistake occurred.

Solicitors at Vardags, who were representing the wife, had wanted to apply for a final order of divorce for a different client, but incorrectly opened the electronic case file for the Williamses instead, The Times reports.

The firm was founded by Ayesha Vardag, dubbed the ‘Diva of divorce’, who has acted for several high net worth and high profile clients, from Qatari princes, Malaysian millionaires and business tycoons to international footballers, celebrities and royalty.

They include former Malaysian beauty queen Pauline Chai, who she helped secure a £64million settlement for in her 2017 divorce from businessman Khoo Kay Peng.

Divorce lawyer Ayesha Vardag, who has represented several high net worth and high-profile clients, founded the law firm at the centre of a row over the erroneous divorce application

In the case of the Williamses, Vardags argued that the final divorce order had been made without the consent of their client and for that reason should not stand.

The firm had noticed the error two days later and applied to the High Court to rescind the order.

But Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the family division, remained unmoved by their argument and said the divorce is still valid, adding there was ‘a strong public policy interest in respecting the certainty and finality that flows from a final divorce order.’

Vardag argued there needed to be intention on the part of the couple and the ruling was the equivalent of ‘the computer says no, you’re divorced’.

She added: ‘When it’s brought to the court’s attention that it was a mistake…obviously it has to be undone.’