There are many unqualified people offering online divorce services these days, and as they're inevitably a lot cheaper than solicitors it's not surprising they're popular.
However, because they are unqualified and unregulated there's no automatic right to redress if they mess up.
I came across this case just recently - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2021/80.html
For those who can't be bothered to read the (very short) judgment the online firm involved, iDivorces, basically did the paperwork for would be divorcees. Unfortunately, all the relevant petitions that were based on unreasonable behaviour used exactly the same behaviour as the basis for the petition.
And when I say exactly the same it was just that - word for word. This was the wording used:
"For about a year prior to the separation the respondent would become moody without justification and argumentative towards the petitioner. He/she would behave in this way on at least a couple of days every week, which would cause a lot of tension within the home thereby making the petitioner's life very uncomfortable. During the same period the respondent would also often ignore the petitioner and decline to communicate with him. He/she would also behave in this way on about two days every week, which would also cause a lot of tension within the home and make the petitioner's life very difficult. The respondent showed no interest in leading the life of a married woman/man for about a year before the separation. For example, he/she would go out socially on his/her own and basically exclude the petitioner from his/her life thereby making him/her feel very dejected."
Perhaps not surprisingly the judge dealing with the petitions noticed that there seemed to be a lot of cases - 28 to be precise - where the respondent was becoming moody and argumentative a couple of days a week and had lost interest in leading the life of a married woman/man (it probably didn't help that the petitioner didn't seem to know whether he/she was a man or a woman and whether he/she was married to a man or a woman!)
No doubt concerned by an apparent epidemic of moodiness and argumentativeness, not to mention a remarkable rise in the number of gender-fluid petitioners, the judge reported it to her boss, who in turn referred the matter to the High Court.
All 28 cases were dismissed, meaning that each of those petitioners will have to start all over again, incurring a new petition fee of £593. In theory they could claim this back from iDivorces, but how long they will remain in business after such a fiasco remains to be seen.
Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site
Dangers of online divorce
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2859
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1385 times
- Been thanked: 3775 times
-
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 969
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:17 pm
- Has thanked: 112 times
- Been thanked: 271 times
Re: Dangers of online divorce
If two people want to get divorced who is a judge to say that the parties don't get on and should therefore treat any application as merely an example of one person's unreasonable behaviour against the other. In this particular case the fact there is continuing tension within the marriage should be enough for a judge to accept that the couple cannot continue to live together harmoniously.
While of course a judge has the power to throw out an application it has to be said that the law is ridiculous especially insofar as uncontested divorces are concerned. Isn't there a proposal to revise the unreasonable behaviour requirements in divorce cases?
While of course a judge has the power to throw out an application it has to be said that the law is ridiculous especially insofar as uncontested divorces are concerned. Isn't there a proposal to revise the unreasonable behaviour requirements in divorce cases?
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 18694
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
- Has thanked: 628 times
- Been thanked: 6568 times
Re: Dangers of online divorce
Clitheroekid wrote:All 28 cases were dismissed, meaning that each of those petitioners will have to start all over again, incurring a new petition fee of £593. In theory they could claim this back from iDivorces, but how long they will remain in business after such a fiasco remains to be seen.
Cannot say I had ever thought of this before, but if a court annuls (is that the right word?) a previously granted divorce, then what happens if one of the individuals then immediately married someone else?
Would that second marriage also be invalid on the grounds that the first marriage was no longer over?
Re: Dangers of online divorce
Mike88 wrote:If two people want to get divorced who is a judge to say that the parties don't get on and should therefore treat any application as merely an example of one person's unreasonable behaviour against the other. In this particular case the fact there is continuing tension within the marriage should be enough for a judge to accept that the couple cannot continue to live together harmoniously.
While of course a judge has the power to throw out an application it has to be said that the law is ridiculous especially insofar as uncontested divorces are concerned. Isn't there a proposal to revise the unreasonable behaviour requirements in divorce cases?
No fault divorces are due to be introduced from April 2022 in England and Wales
https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/fa ... aw-change/
Return to “Legal Issues (Practical)”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest