Can excluding your spouse from financial decisions affect a divorce settlement?

Much of the commentary on the July 2026 decision in the Court of Appeal of Anthony David Culligan v Diane Liza Rosemin-Culligan has focused on Wells sharing and the treatment of illiquid assets. But there is another aspect of the case that deserves attention. The appeal may also illustrate how differently the outcome could have been if the court had accepted the wife’s allegations that the husband had conducted himself in a way that should affect the outcome.

The wife’s allegations

The wife alleged that the husband had engaged in “secretive and unilateral financial actions”. Among other matters, she complained that he had failed to inform her about key decisions relating to SETL Limited and, in particular, the proposed acquisition of SETL by Colendi.

The allegations were important because the acquisition transformed the parties’ wealth. The husband’s SETL shareholding was exchanged for a minority shareholding in Colendi, resulting in a substantial portion of the family’s wealth being held in a highly illiquid and uncertain investment. The wife argued that she had not been consulted and that the transaction had materially altered the nature of the matrimonial assets available for distribution.

The judge rejected the conduct case

The first judge was clear. He concluded that none of the conduct allegations relied upon by the wife came close to satisfying the high threshold required by section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. He expressly decided that it would not be unfair to disregard the husband’s conduct and rejected the allegation that he had conducted the parties’ finances in a secretive and unilateral manner.

That finding was crucial. Having rejected the conduct case, the judge nevertheless went on to conclude that it was fair for the husband to bear a larger share of the consequences of having, without consulting the wife, converted his interest in SETL into an illiquid minority shareholding in Colendi. That reasoning ultimately became a central target of the appeal.

Why the Court of Appeal intervened

The Court of Appeal identified a fundamental difficulty. The first judge had already determined that it was not inequitable to disregard the husband’s alleged failure to disclose the pending acquisition of SETL by Colendi. Having reached that conclusion, it was inconsistent to rely on the same factor as a justification for loading more of the risky assets onto the husband when dividing the assets.

The court also found that there was no evidence that consultation would have changed anything. The evidence before the court strongly suggested that SETL was running out of money and that the transaction with Colendi would have proceeded in any event. The husband owned only 46% of SETL and was not capable of unilaterally preventing or compelling the transaction.

Most importantly, the Court of Appeal found no evidential basis for the proposition that the transaction had increased risk or damaged the matrimonial estate. Indeed, the available evidence suggested the opposite. SETL had experienced significant operating losses and financial difficulties. The Colendi transaction arguably created substantial value that might otherwise never have materialised.

The counterfactual question

The really interesting question for divorcing couples going through divorce in similar circumstances is this:

What if the conduct allegations had been proved?

What if the wife had persuaded the first judge that the husband’s conduct was such that it should affect the outcome of the case?

The Court of Appeal did not answer that question directly. However, its reasoning may provide some clues.

1. The Court of Appeal did not criticise the principle that conduct surrounding the creation, preservation or transformation of assets can affect the structure of an award. What it rejected was the use of allegations that had already failed.
2. There was no proven misconduct. There was no evidence that consultation would have changed the outcome. There was no evidence that the transaction had increased risk. There was no evidence that the husband had acted to prejudice the wife’s claims.

Remove those criticisms and the legal outcome may start to look different. Had the judge found that the husband had deliberately excluded the wife from a decision which materially increased risk, reduced liquidity or prejudiced her financial claims, that finding might have provided a far stronger basis for allocating a larger share of that risk to him.

A reminder about conduct arguments

The case therefore contains an important practical lesson for those going through divorce. Conduct allegations remain difficult to prove in financial remedy proceedings. The threshold remains high and most allegations fail. However, where the court decides that one party’s conduct was so serious as to make it fair to penalise them in how wealth is divided, it can have consequences that extend beyond a straightforward adjustment to percentages.

Conclusion

The headline lesson from Culligan is that matrimonial risk should usually be shared. But there is a secondary lesson.  Had the wife established that the husband had improperly engineered the transformation of a valuable matrimonial asset into a riskier and less liquid investment, it may well have been fair for her to receive 70% liquid assets and 30% illiquid assets as the first judge decided rather than the straight 50:50% division the Court of Appeal imposed.

That possibility lurks just beneath the surface of this case. So, for people going through divorce who feel locked out of decisions in their marriage, it might be worth talking to a solicitor about their experiences.  And for those spouses who manage illiquid wealth, it may well be prudent to keep your spouse in the loop.

Alex Davies is a partner and head of the family team at Wedlake Bell and can be contacted on adavies@wedlakebell.com or 07827 961826.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a comprehensive statement of the law. Specific legal advice should always be sought in relation to individual circumstances.

Meet the team:

1. 

   • Alex Davies

   • Partner
   • Family & Divorce

   Visit Alex's profile

View the whole team