The follow-up decision in Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 26 deals with two contentious post-judgment issues: who should pay the costs of the financial remedy proceedings and whether the judgment should be anonymised. With £1.3 million in legal fees, disputed disclosure, and an argument over the principle of open justice, the case is a valuable study in how courts approach litigation misconduct and the growing shift away from anonymisation in family proceedings.

For family law practitioners, this decision serves as a clear warning about the risks of aggressive litigation tactics and a reminder that financial remedy judgments are not guaranteed anonymity.

The Costs Battle: Who Pays for the Litigation?

The wife sought a costs order against the husband, citing his poor litigation conduct, particularly:

• Repeated disclosure failures (including the non-disclosure of Bitcoin assets and tax liabilities).
• Delays in responding to court orders and failing to engage with the disclosure process.
• Refusal to negotiate reasonably, including rejecting mediation attempts.

The husband, however, fought back, claiming he was not the only one guilty of litigation misconduct. He argued that:

• The wife had also failed to disclose key financial arrangements, particularly regarding the sale of her football club and consultancy agreement.
• She had structured financial transactions in a way that hid assets, misrepresenting £3 million as post-separation income rather than part of the settlement.
• She pursued baseless conduct allegations that added to the length and cost of the trial.

The Court’s Approach: Misconduct Cuts Both Ways

Mr Justice MacDonald ruled that both parties were at fault, but the wife’s litigation misconduct was more significant. The court ordered her to pay £84,540 towards the husband’s legal costs, finding that:

🔹 Her financial structuring artificially reduced the settlement pot (particularly regarding her football club sale).
🔹 She exaggerated claims of coercive control and financial misconduct, which the court found had no merit.
🔹 Her conduct made settlement harder to achieve, prolonging litigation unnecessarily.

🔹 However, the judge also acknowledged that the husband had failed to comply with disclosure requirements, leading to additional costs—but these were deemed delays rather than deliberate concealment.

The Anonymity Debate: Open Justice Wins

The wife sought anonymisation of the judgment, arguing that:

• The case was heard in private, and there was no significant public interest in revealing the parties' names.
• The judgment included details of financial and business dealings, which should remain confidential.
• Publication would cause unnecessary reputational harm.

The husband opposed anonymisation, arguing that:

• The general rule is open justice—family law litigants are not entitled to special treatment.
• The wife’s conduct findings should be public, as the case involved significant misrepresentation of assets.
• The financial details were not commercially sensitive, as key business transactions had already been completed.

The Court’s Decision: No Anonymisation

Mr Justice MacDonald ruled that the judgment should be published in full, without anonymisation, applying the principles from Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30 and Re PP (A Child) [2023] EWHC 330 (Fam).

• The default position is open justice—litigants are not automatically entitled to anonymity.
• There was a legitimate public interest in this case, particularly due to the findings on litigation conduct and financial structuring.
• The wife’s embarrassment was not a sufficient reason to override the principle of open justice.

Practical Lessons for Family Law Practitioners

1. Costs Orders Are Becoming More Common in Financial Remedy Cases

• While the general rule in FPR 2010 r.28.3 is no costs orders, courts are increasingly penalising litigation misconduct.
• Parties must engage reasonably with disclosure and negotiation—or risk costs penalties.

2. Anonymisation Is No Longer the Norm

• Family lawyers should warn clients that judgments may be published with full names.
• If anonymity is sought, it must be justified with clear evidence of harm (not just reputational concerns).

3. Non-Disclosure and Creative Financial Arrangements Will Be Scrutinised

• Courts are willing to look beyond surface-level transactions to determine whether assets are being hidden or misrepresented.
• Clients should be advised to be fully transparent, as delayed or incomplete disclosure can result in adverse costs orders.

Final Thoughts: The Shift Towards Accountability in Family Law

Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 26 reinforces a shift towards greater accountability in financial remedy proceedings. Courts are:

1. More willing to make costs orders where one party unreasonably prolongs litigation.
2. Less inclined to grant anonymity, ensuring that bad litigation conduct is exposed.
3. Taking a robust approach to non-disclosure, scrutinising creative financial structuring.

For family law practitioners, this case is a clear signal that the courts expect transparency, cooperation, and reasonable litigation conduct. If a client drags out proceedings, makes exaggerated allegations, or misrepresents financial information, they risk both financial penalties and public exposure.

Share on Facebook

Post on X