When people think about divorce, they often focus on one question: "How much is everything worth?"
But experienced family lawyers know there is another question which can be just as important: "Can those assets actually be turned into cash?"
A recent Court of Appeal decision, Culligan v Rosemin-Culligan [2026] EWCA Civ 948, is a fascinating reminder that £10 million in shares is not the same as £10 million in the bank.
Not All Millions Are Equal
The case involved a very substantial family fortune of around £27 million. However, almost half of the wealth consisted of shares in a private technology company.
Although those shares had been professionally valued at many millions of pounds, they could not simply be sold tomorrow. There was no public market, no guaranteed buyer, no dividend income and no certainty as to when—or even whether—their value would ultimately be realised.
The Court of Appeal described these as illiquid and risk-laden assets.
That distinction became central to the appeal.
Paper Wealth Isn't Spending Money
Many people assume that if an expert values a business or private company at several million pounds, that money is effectively sitting in the owner's bank account.
In reality, the position can be very different.
Private company shares may:
- be impossible to sell;
- be subject to shareholder restrictions;
- produce no income;
- depend entirely on future commercial success; or
- never achieve the estimated valuation.
The owner may therefore appear extremely wealthy while having very little accessible cash.
The court must balance that commercial reality with the need to achieve fairness on divorce.
Sharing the Risk, Not Just the Reward
The appeal centred on an important principle derived from the well-known case of Wells v Wells [2002] EWCA Civ 476.
The trial judge had sought to protect the wife by allocating her a larger proportion of the liquid assets while leaving the husband holding most of the risky company shares.
The Court of Appeal disagreed.
It emphasised that fairness generally means sharing both the opportunities and the risks of matrimonial assets. If one spouse receives most of the cash while the other is left holding uncertain investments, the outcome may not be truly equal at all.
As Thorpe LJ memorably observed in Wells, fairness is achieved by sharing both the "copper-bottomed" assets and the "illiquid and risk-laden" ones.
A Valuable Reminder About Business Owners
The case is particularly relevant for entrepreneurs. Many business owners worry that divorce will force the immediate sale of their company.
In reality, family courts are often keen to avoid destroying a successful business simply to achieve a clean break. Instead, judges look for practical solutions that preserve value while ensuring fairness between the parties.
That may involve:
- transferring shares;
- deferred lump sums;
- contingent payments; or
- carefully balancing liquid and illiquid assets.
Every case turns on its own facts.
The Court Also Corrected an Important Misunderstanding
Another interesting feature of the judgment concerns the husband's business. The trial judge had concluded that the husband had converted a valuable matrimonial asset into something riskier by exchanging shares in one company for shares in another.
The Court of Appeal rejected that analysis.
On the evidence, the original company was itself already an illiquid private business facing significant financial difficulties. The transaction had not transformed a secure asset into a risky one. If anything, it had improved the prospects of creating value by saving the business and exchanging one illiquid investment for another with greater commercial potential.
It is a useful reminder that judges must look carefully at the commercial evidence rather than simply assume that a business restructuring has disadvantaged one party.
Fairness Doesn't Mean Cash for One and Risk for the Other
Perhaps the most important lesson from Culligan is that fairness is about more than simply ensuring each spouse receives assets with the same headline value.
The quality of those assets also matters.
- Cash in the bank.
- A listed investment portfolio.
- A private company.
- A start-up business.
- Commercial property.
Each carries different levels of liquidity and different degrees of risk.
The family court's task is to ensure that one spouse does not walk away with secure, easily realised assets while the other is left holding all the uncertainty.
Final Thoughts
Modern family wealth is becoming increasingly complex. Many families now hold significant assets in businesses, private companies, technology ventures, investment portfolios and digital assets rather than simply in bricks and mortar.
Culligan v Rosemin-Culligan reminds us that valuation is only part of the picture. A fair financial settlement requires the court to look beyond headline figures and consider how easily assets can be realised, what risks they carry and whether those risks are being shared fairly.
If your financial circumstances involve a business, company shares or other illiquid investments, specialist legal advice is essential. Cases involving these assets often require expert valuation evidence and careful planning to achieve a fair outcome without unnecessarily damaging the underlying business or investment.
