Costs, Anonymity, and Open Justice in Family Law: Lessons from Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 26

The follow-up decision in Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 26 deals with two contentious post-judgment issues: who should pay the costs of the financial remedy proceedings and whether the judgment should be anonymised. With ￡1.3 million in legal fees, disputed disclosure, and an argument over the principle of open justice, the case is a valuable study in how courts approach litigation misconduct and the growing shift away from anonymisation in family proceedings.

For family law practitioners, this decision serves as a clear warning about the risks of aggressive litigation tactics and a reminder that financial remedy judgments are not guaranteed anonymity.

The Costs Battle: Who Pays for the Litigation?

The wife sought a costs order against the husband, citing his poor litigation conduct, particularly:

• Repeated disclosure failures (including the non-disclosure of Bitcoin assets and tax liabilities).
• Delays in responding to court orders and failing to engage with the disclosure process.
• Refusal to negotiate reasonably, including rejecting mediation attempts.

The husband, however, fought back, claiming he was not the only one guilty of litigation misconduct. He argued that:

• The wife had also failed to disclose key financial arrangements, particularly regarding the sale of her football club and consultancy agreement.
• She had structured financial transactions in a way that hid assets, misrepresenting ￡3 million as post-separation income rather than part of the settlement.
• She pursued baseless conduct allegations that added to the length and cost of the trial.

The Court’s Approach: Misconduct Cuts Both Ways

Mr Justice MacDonald ruled that both parties were at fault, but the wife’s litigation misconduct was more significant. The court ordered her to pay ￡84,540 towards the husband’s legal costs, finding that:

?? Her financial structuring artificially reduced the settlement pot (particularly regarding her football club sale). ?? She exaggerated claims of coercive control and financial misconduct, which the court found had no merit. ?? Her conduct made settlement harder to achieve, prolonging litigation unnecessarily.

However, the judge also acknowledged that the husband had failed to comply with disclosure requirements, leading to additional costs—but these were deemed delays rather than deliberate concealment.

The Anonymity Debate: Open Justice Wins

The wife sought anonymisation of the judgment, arguing that:

• The case was heard in private, and there was no significant public interest in revealing the parties' names.
• The judgment included details of financial and business dealings, which should remain confidential.
• Publication would cause unnecessary reputational harm.

The husband opposed anonymisation, arguing that:

• The general rule is open justice—family law litigants are not entitled to special treatment.
• The wife’s conduct findings should be public, as the case involved significant misrepresentation of assets.
• The financial details were not commercially sensitive, as key business transactions had already been completed.

The Court’s Decision: No Anonymisation

Mr Justice MacDonald ruled that the judgment should be published in full, without anonymisation, applying the principles from Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30 and Re PP (A Child) [2023] EWHC 330 (Fam).

• The default position is open justice—litigants are not automatically entitled to anonymity.
• There was a legitimate public interest in this case, particularly due to the findings on litigation conduct and financial structuring.
• The wife’s embarrassment was not a sufficient reason to override the principle of open justice.

Practical Lessons for Family Law Practitioners

Costs Orders Are Becoming More Common in Financial Remedy Cases

• While the general rule in FPR 2010 r.28.3 is no costs orders, courts are increasingly penalising litigation misconduct.
• Parties must engage reasonably with disclosure and negotiation—or risk costs penalties.

Anonymisation Is No Longer the Norm

• Family lawyers should warn clients that judgments may be published with full names.
• If anonymity is sought, it must be justified with clear evidence of harm (not just reputational concerns).

Non-Disclosure and Creative Financial Arrangements Will Be Scrutinised

• Courts are willing to look beyond surface-level transactions to determine whether assets are being hidden or misrepresented.
• Clients should be advised to be fully transparent, as delayed or incomplete disclosure can result in adverse costs orders.

Final Thoughts: The Shift Towards Accountability in Family Law

Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 26 reinforces a shift towards greater accountability in financial remedy proceedings. Courts are:

1. More willing to make costs orders where one party unreasonably prolongs litigation.
2. Less inclined to grant anonymity, ensuring that bad litigation conduct is exposed.
3. Taking a robust approach to non-disclosure, scrutinising creative financial structuring.

For family law practitioners, this case is a clear signal that the courts expect transparency, cooperation, and reasonable litigation conduct. If a client drags out proceedings, makes exaggerated allegations, or misrepresents financial information, they risk both financial penalties and public exposure.

Contact Information

James Thornton Family Law is open for business, and we’re ready to help with your family law needs. For more information or to book a consultation, please get in touch:

• Phone: 01904 373111
• Email: [email protected]
• Website: www.jamesthorntonfamilylaw.co.uk
• Office Address: James Thornton Family Law, Popeshead Court Offices, Peter Lane York YO1 8SU