Divorce cases often raise important questions over how assets are valued, divided and structured. The high-profile case of a figure from the sporting world, and one who made a fortune via bitcoin, is just such an instance.

Diane Culligan, who founded Women’s Championship football side, the London City Lionesses, has won a High Court divorce fight with her bitcoin millionaire ex-husband over the £7 million ($9 million) family home. Mrs Culligan and her ex-husband, Anthony, lived a lavish lifestyle, funded by his bitcoin fortune after he turned a £10,000 crypto purse into £20 million, and together the couple built a lucrative rental property portfolio. Despite agreeing to split their £27.3 million fortune equally, they ended up entwined in a High Court battle over how to split the assets.

To consider the case’s ramifications is lawyer Shivi Rajput (pictured below). She is a partner at Stowe Family Law. The editors are pleased to share this content; the usual editorial disclaimers apply to views of guest writers. Remember, these articles are designed to start conversations: please get involved if you have views. Email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesley@clearviewpublishing.com

Shivi Rajput

Few family law battles capture the complexities of high net worth divorce quite like the Culligans' recent High Court dispute. Diane Culligan, founder of the women's football club, London City Lionesses, endured an acrimonious split from her bitcoin millionaire ex-husband, Anthony Culligan, in 2022. Their assets included a nine-bedroom, seven-bathroom home in Primrose Hill valued at £7 million, along with a lucrative rental property portfolio.
 
In their early 60s, the couple had enjoyed a lavish lifestyle during their 40-year marriage, thanks to the husband’s extraordinary success in turning a £10,000 crypto investment into a £20 million fortune. Despite agreeing to split their £27.3 million estate equally, they clashed over how to achieve this. The wife sought to retain the family home, while the husband insisted it should be sold to generate liquid cash.
 
Mr Justice MacDonald ruled in favour of the wife, allowing her to keep the property. While he questioned why a newly-single woman "needed" such a large house, he acknowledged her emotional attachment and determined that a fair settlement could be reached without forcing a sale.
 
To balance the settlement, Mr Culligan retained the rental properties and received a £750,000 lump sum from his ex-spouse. Additionally, she was required to share some of the riskier, illiquid assets, enabling him to secure a new home.

The Culligan case underscores a critical but often overlooked element in HNW divorces: emotional investment. For many, a family home or business is more than just an asset – it represents identity, legacy, and stability. These psychological factors frequently lead to deeply entrenched disputes, making it essential for legal advisors to navigate both the financial and emotional aspects of wealth division.

Valuation of assets: Present vs future worth
A significant point of contention was the valuation of the husband’s shares in Colendi, a financial services platform. He held a 3.6 per cent stake, valued at £19 million by a single joint expert. The wife sought a percentage share, while the husband argued that transferring the shares was impractical due to their illiquidity.
 
The court upheld the £19 million valuation, rejecting the husband’s plea for a discount based on illiquidity. Recent transactions demonstrated investor willingness to pay $2 per share, reinforcing the market value assessment.

This highlights an ongoing challenge in HNW divorces: should a business, property, or investment be valued based on its present worth or its future potential? Courts in England and Wales typically adopt a pragmatic approach, favouring a snapshot valuation unless compelling evidence supports adjustments for projected growth.
 
Another asset under scrutiny was the wife's consultancy payments from the sale of ELSA Sports Services Limited for £6 million. As part of the sale, the wife entered into a consultancy agreement, which would see her earn £750,000 pa for four years. The husband argued that this constituted deferred consideration for the club’s sale, rather than genuine post-matrimonial income, and thus, should be treated as a matrimonial asset. The court agreed, adding £1.6 million (net of tax) to the wife's share of the asset schedule.

Tax liabilities: A cross-border challenge
The husband’s US citizenship introduced complex tax liabilities, particularly regarding bitcoin sales and potential capital gains tax on property transfers. The US tax liability arose from the sale of matrimonial assets (SETL Limited, ESLA and the renovation of the family home). Accordingly, the court held that the US tax liabilities accrued during the marriage should be split equally between the parties. 
 
The risk of illiquid assets 
A further dispute arose from the husband’s unilateral decision to convert a significant portion of matrimonial assets through the company, SETL Limited, into Colendi shares, making those assets illiquid and volatile. The court ruled that fairness required that these shares to be divided in a way that accounted for both parties' financial needs. The wife was awarded 30 per cent of the shares, realised through a contingent lump sum upon their eventual sale, ensuring that she was not disproportionately burdened by their illiquidity.
 
Non-disclosure and conduct 
The wife accused the husband of hiding additional cryptocurrency wallets, which he later disclosed contained £371,000 in undisclosed bitcoin. The husband was penalised for delayed disclosure of assets, including the bitcoin wallets and Colendi shareholding structure, but the wife was also criticised for a lack of transparency in the football club sale, failing to disclose documents until compelled to do so by court order. Neither party’s conduct met the exceptionally high threshold to reduce their financial awards under s25(2)(g) MCA 1973, but the court did impose cost penalties on the husband for his non-disclosure. 

Final settlement: A balancing act 
Ultimately, the court ordered a near-equal split of their £27.3 million estate. Pensions, valued at £1.12 million, were divided equally. The wife's £750,000 lump sum payment to the husband contributed to the settlement's balance. 
 
More than just numbers 
The Culligan case illuminates the intricate tapestry of high net worth divorces, where the division of substantial assets intertwines with profound emotional undercurrents. Beyond the spreadsheets and valuations lies a deeper narrative – one where assets symbolise more than monetary value. This case underscores the necessity for a nuanced approach in legal proceedings, and a reminder that careful planning, expert advice and transparency are key in HNW divorces.