The case of Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 1 is a significant decision in family law, dealing with complex financial remedy proceedings following a long marriage of over 40 years. MacDonald J was tasked with balancing an estate worth in excess of £26 million, including properties, pensions, company interests, and emerging wealth forms such as digital assets and cryptocurrencies.
This judgment is particularly important because it provides fresh judicial guidance on how courts should handle volatile, high-value, and illiquid assets such as Bitcoin and private company shares acquired through cryptocurrency ventures. It highlights both the adaptability of English family law and the challenges posed by modern asset classes in divorce proceedings.
Background to the case
The husband (H) and wife (W) married in the early 1980s and amassed substantial wealth together. The most notable element of their fortune arose from H’s early adoption of Bitcoin. In 2012, H invested approximately £10,000 into Bitcoin, acquiring just over 1,000 coins. By 2017, the value of that holding had soared to around £20 million, transforming the financial landscape of the marriage.
H also founded a peer-to-peer Bitcoin exchange, later sold to Colendi, through which he received a minority equity stake. The Single Joint Expert valued that stake at around £19 million. Meanwhile, the parties also held the family home (worth £7 million), investment properties, pensions, and other assets.
The litigation revolved around three core disputes:
-
The true nature of a “consultancy fee” received after selling a football club interest (ELSA).
-
How to deal with the highly illiquid Colendi shares and other digital assets.
-
Allegations of financial misconduct, disclosure failures, and the costs consequences that followed.
Key findings of the court
1. The consultancy fee
One central dispute was whether W’s £750,000 annual “consultancy fee” after the sale of ELSA was income or deferred consideration for the sale. H argued it was disguised income, meaning he should be entitled to a share of ongoing payments. W contended it was a form of purchase price spread out over time.
The court sided with W: the payments were deferred consideration, not income. The judge noted the lack of performance obligations and the artificiality of classifying it as consultancy work.
2. Treatment of digital assets
Perhaps the most groundbreaking part of the case was how the court dealt with digital assets like Bitcoin and the Colendi shares.
The Bitcoin, already liquidated into other ventures, illustrated the explosive growth potential of cryptocurrency holdings in family finance cases. The Colendi shares posed a harder challenge: they were unlisted, illiquid, and potentially volatile. The court recognised that an immediate division would be unfair and impractical.
Instead, drawing on Wells v Wells principles, MacDonald J awarded W a 30% interest in H’s Colendi shares through a “phantom share” arrangement. This means W will benefit if and when those shares generate value, but without disrupting ownership or forcing a premature sale.
This pragmatic approach offers a template for future cases involving illiquid digital assets, ensuring fairness while avoiding destabilisation of speculative investments.
3. Division of other matrimonial wealth
-
The £7 million family home (FMH) was transferred outright to W
-
H retained most investment properties, aligning with his higher risk-tolerance and business management
-
Deferred consideration from ELSA was split equally
-
US tax liabilities (because of H’s dual citizenship) were shared equally, ensuring neither party bore disproportionate cross-border tax burdens
4. Allegations of misconduct and costs
W raised allegations under s 25(1)(g) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, including claims of financial control, PTSD from marital treatment, and H’s supposed failure to disclose. However, the judge held that the threshold for conduct affecting financial division was not met. This illustrates the judiciary’s reluctance to let personal grievances tilt asset distribution without clear, extreme evidence.
Why cryptocurrency matters in matrimonial finance
This case starkly illustrates the transformative role of cryptocurrency in modern financial remedy proceedings. A modest £10,000 investment ballooned into life-changing wealth. Without such holdings, the matrimonial estate would have been far smaller, and the case less complex.
The court’s handling shows that:
-
Cryptocurrencies must be disclosed in full. Its volatility is no excuse for non-disclosure.
-
Valuation requires specialist input, especially when assets are held through exchanges or in venture-backed companies linked to crypto.
-
Courts are willing to use innovative mechanisms (phantom share awards, deferred benefit structures) to share crypto-derived wealth fairly without forcing premature liquidation.
As more spouses hold crypto portfolios, whether speculative Bitcoin, Ethereum, or tokenised assets, courts will increasingly encounter these disputes.
Implications for future family law cases
The decision cements that digital assets are matrimonial property to be divided under s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. No artificial distinction is drawn between “traditional” and “modern” assets.
H’s US tax liabilities highlight how international dimensions of crypto wealth can complicate settlements. Future cases may involve multi-jurisdictional tax reporting, offshore wallets, or disputes about tracing tokens across borders.
The phantom share order for Colendi holdings is a strong precedent for other cases involving start-ups, private equity, or blockchain ventures. It shows the court’s preference for sharing in future growth rather than ordering forced realisation.
Broader implications for digital assets in society
Beyond divorce proceedings, this case reflects wider societal recognition of digital assets. They are no longer fringe investments but central to wealth portfolios. The family courts’ approach may influence:
-
Insolvency proceedings (valuing digital holdings)
-
Estate planning and succession (how crypto wallets are passed on)
-
Taxation frameworks (ensuring fair assessment of gains)
Thus, Culligan v Culligan is not just a family law case but a marker of how English law adapts to the realities of digital finance.
The judgment shows that cryptocurrency and digital assets are integral to wealth division, requiring careful valuation, sharing mechanisms, and tax considerations.
Future family law disputes are likely to draw on this case when spouses hold blockchain-based wealth, whether as speculative Bitcoin or equity in crypto-related companies. Its message is clear: the courts will innovate to ensure fairness, but transparency and responsible litigation conduct are essential.
Find The Best Divorce & Family Lawyers Near You
We independently review and list the top divorce lawyers and family solicitors in the towns and cities near you. 100% free.
The information on this website is to be considered a guide and is therefore not legal advice. You use this information with the understanding that Wiselaw does not accept liability for any direct or indirect losses as a result of anyone relying on or acting upon the information on this website. Whilst we endeavour to provide accurate information, Wiselaw does not accept liability for any errors or omissions on this website.
