Anthony David Culligan v Diane Liza Rosemin-Culligan

In a financial-remedy award, the court must account for the differing quality, liquidity and risk of matrimonial assets when applying the sharing principle. There is no rule that Wells sharing is a last resort or that it may comprise only a minority of an award. Nor is it standard practice. The appropriate allocation is a fact-sensitive assessment of fairness, taking proper account of the clean-break duty under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

A clean break cannot be achieved at the expense of fairness. Where a substantial matrimonial asset is illiquid, risk-laden and uncertain in value or realisation, the court must distribute that risk fairly between the parties. It may value an asset and share its value without treating valuation, sale and in-specie division as mutually exclusive choices.

Anthony David Culligan v Diane Liza Rosemin-Culligan concerned a final financial-remedy order following a marriage of about 40 years. MacDonald J made an equal division by total value, but allocated 70% of the husband’s share and 30% of the wife’s share in illiquid shares in Colendi Holdings Ltd. The wife was to receive contingent lump sums representing 30% of the value realised from those shares.

The husband appealed from the High Court’s order, reported at [2025] EWFC 1. He contended that the unequal allocation of the illiquid shares was unfair and resulted from a mistaken approach to Wells sharing. The central issue was whether the order achieved a fair balance of risk and illiquidity between the parties.

1. Appeal allowed. The judge’s distribution of the liquid and illiquid assets did not achieve a fair balance of risk and illiquidity. The Court of Appeal therefore varied the financial-remedy order.
2. There is no legal principle that sharing an illiquid asset in specie, commonly called Wells sharing, is a last resort or must comprise only a minority of an award. The contrary expressions relied on below did not state the ratio of Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050. Nor is Wells sharing standard practice. The exercise remains fact-sensitive and must be approached cautiously, including by considering the clean-break duty under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
3. The distinction between a valuation of private-company shares and cash is material. Assets carry differing levels of risk, and the court must take that into account when applying the sharing principle. A fixed valuation does not give an illiquid asset the same quality as cash. The court may fix a value, order a sale and divide an asset in specie in combination; those are not mutually exclusive alternatives.
4. The judge’s reliance on the husband’s failure to consult the wife before SETL’s sale to Colendi was unsustainable. On the evidence, the sale would have proceeded even if she had been consulted. The judge had also rejected that failure as conduct which it would be inequitable to disregard. There was no evidence that the share swap had made the asset more illiquid or increased its risk. Rather, SETL had been financially precarious and the transaction had enhanced the prospect of value being realised.
5. The Colendi shares were matrimonial, illiquid and subject to significant uncertainty as to future value and realisation. They represented about half of the parties’ wealth. The considerations favouring equal division outweighed the disadvantages to the wife of her continuing interest. The wife’s entitlement to value realised from the shares was increased from 30% to 50%. The former matrimonial home was ordered to be sold, with the husband receiving 40.4% of the net proceeds, irrespective of the sale price. The deed of covenant was to be amended accordingly.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the husband’s appeal and varied the final financial-remedy order: [2026] EWCA Civ 948 .
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: MacDonald J made the final financial-remedy order on 1 September 2025, reported at [2025] EWFC 1. The Court of Appeal varied its allocation of the illiquid Colendi shares and ordered sale of the former matrimonial home.