From Bitcoin to Football Clubs: The High-Stakes Divorce of Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 1

The financial remedy case of Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 1 is a textbook example of a high-net-worth divorce gone awry. With ￡27 million at stake, a disputed Bitcoin fortune, a women’s football club sale, and complex tax liabilities, the case raises key issues for family lawyers dealing with long marriages, illiquid assets, and corporate shareholdings.

Here’s what family law practitioners need to know about this decision and the practical lessons it offers.

The Case: A Wealthy but Messy Divorce

Diane Liza Rosemin-Culligan (the wife) and Anthony David Culligan (the husband) had a marriage spanning 40 years. While both agreed that a broadly equal division of assets was appropriate, the fight was over how that division should be structured.

The key issues before Mr Justice MacDonald included:

1. The valuation and division of the husband’s shares in Colendi, a fintech company.
2. Whether the wife’s consultancy agreement—paying her ￡750,000 a year—was actually deferred consideration for the sale of her football club.
3. Who should bear the significant tax liabilities, including those arising from the husband's U.S. citizenship.
4. The treatment of the Bitcoin fortune, which had been used to fund both parties’ business ventures.
5. Allegations of litigation misconduct and non-disclosure by both parties.

Despite the eye-watering sums involved, this case illustrates familiar legal issues: the treatment of illiquid assets, the challenge of attributing hidden income, and the impact of conduct on financial remedy claims.

Key Legal Issues & Lessons for Practitioners

Valuation of Illiquid Assets – The Colendi Shares

A major dispute centred around the husband’s 3.6% shareholding in Colendi, a fintech company that had recently acquired his previous business, SETL Limited.

• The single joint expert valued the husband’s Colendi shares at ￡19 million.
• However, the shares were held via a nominee company, meaning they were subject to transfer restrictions that complicated their division.
• The court had to determine whether a direct share transfer to the wife was possible—or whether a contingent lump sum should be ordered instead.

When dealing with business assets, transfer restrictions and nominee structures can limit enforceability. Ensure early expert valuation and consider alternative forms of division (e.g., deferred lump sums).

Was the Wife’s ￡750,000 Salary a “Disguised Asset” in the Football Club Sale?

The wife had built and sold ELSA Sports Services Limited, which owned the London City Lionesses football club. She agreed to a ￡6 million sale price, but:

• She also entered into a consultancy agreement, earning her ￡750,000 per year for four years.
• The husband argued that this was not genuine post-marital income but deferred consideration for the club’s sale, designed to shield the money from the divorce settlement.
• The court found that while the consultancy payments were partly legitimate, they should be treated as part of the matrimonial assets.

Courts look beyond the surface of financial transactions—if a deal artificially defers income, it may be reclassified as an asset for division.

The Tax Nightmare of the “Accidental American”

The husband was an “accidental American”—born in the U.S. but with no real ties there. However, this triggered massive U.S. tax liabilities, including:

• Capital gains tax on Bitcoin sales.
• Tax on U.K. property disposals.
• A potential U.S. tax charge on any asset transfers in the divorce.

The court accepted expert evidence that the husband’s tax liabilities ranged from ￡1.4 million to ￡1.7 million. The wife sought to avoid any responsibility for these debts, arguing that she should not suffer from her husband’s citizenship status.

The court ruled that:

• The husband must bear his own U.S. tax burden.
• The wife should not be exposed to unpredictable foreign tax risks.

International tax exposure can drastically affect financial remedy settlements. In cases involving U.S. citizens, specialist tax advice is essential.

Bitcoin Fortunes & Hidden Assets

The case revealed a Bitcoin goldmine:

• The husband had purchased over 1,000 Bitcoin in 2012 for ￡10,000, which skyrocketed in value to ￡20 million in 2017.
• The funds had been used throughout the marriage to finance both the husband’s fintech ventures and the wife’s football club.
• The wife accused the husband of hiding additional cryptocurrency wallets, which he later disclosed contained ￡371,000 in undisclosed Bitcoin.

The court ruled that while the missing Bitcoin was not enough to justify an inference of wider concealment, the husband’s failure to disclose it earlier was litigation misconduct.

Cryptocurrency assets are notoriously difficult to track, making full disclosure essential. Consider early forensic tracing of crypto transactions.

Litigation Misconduct and the Cost of Delay

Both parties accused each other of bad litigation conduct:

• The husband was penalised for delayed disclosure of assets, including the Bitcoin wallets and Colendi shareholding structure.
• The wife was criticised for a lack of transparency in the football club sale, failing to disclose documents until compelled by court order.

While neither party’s conduct met the high threshold for reducing their financial award under s.25(1)(g) MCA 1973, the court did impose costs penalties on the husband for disclosure failures.

Non-disclosure and litigation misconduct won’t necessarily affect the final award, but they will increase costs exposure. Ensure early compliance with disclosure obligations to avoid judicial criticism.

The Court’s Decision: A “Wells Sharing” Approach

Given the illiquid nature of the Colendi shares, the court adopted a Wells sharing approach (Wells v Wells [2002] EWCA Civ 476), ensuring that both parties shared the risks and rewards of future value fluctuations.

The final order included: The wife retaining the ￡7 million former matrimonial home. The husband keeping his Colendi shares but paying the wife 15% of any future proceeds. A lump sum payment to equalise liquid assets. Each party keeping their own businesses and pensions. The husband bearing his own U.S. tax liabilities.

Final Thoughts: Key Takeaways for Family Lawyers

1. Illiquid business assets require creative structuring – Courts are increasingly using Wells sharing to divide risky corporate holdings.
2. Disguised income can be reclassified as a matrimonial asset – Consultancy agreements, bonuses, or deferred deals should be scrutinised.
3. International tax liabilities can derail settlements – Clients with U.S. citizenship need specialist tax advice early.
4. Cryptocurrency must be fully disclosed – Courts take non-disclosure of Bitcoin seriously.
5. Litigation misconduct leads to costs penalties – Delays and strategic non-disclosure can backfire badly.

Culligan v Culligan is a case study in complex asset division—and a reminder that transparency and careful planning are key in high-net-worth divorces.

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