Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

McCartney - Mills Judgement Compendium

The wife's (Mills) behaviour has many similarities to that of many other wives, that goes unreported BUT REWARDED. The difference here is that this case/judgement has been recorded and reported.

Several articles on this soap-opera case.

There are a number of reasons for posting it, including the similarity of the wife's (Mills) behaviour to that of many other wives that go unreported BUT REWARDED, the very fact that this has been recorded and reported, unlike most others, where instead the wife's duplicity is rewarded, and how self-representation can go very wrong.

The full judgement is a revealing read.

Download/Read the full judgement in Mills-McCartney case [266k]:
Attachment
Download/Read the full judgement in Mills-McCartney case [266k]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2008/03/18/judgement.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_03_08_mccartney_mills.pdf
The Telegraph
18 March 2008
Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills divorce: Judge's full ruling to be made public
By Caroline Gammell and Matthew Moore

Outside court Heather Mills spent 11 minutes attacking Sir Paul and the legal system
Picture: Outside court Heather Mills spent 11 minutes attacking Sir Paul and the legal system

Play the video: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1137942530/bclid1155254697/bctid1459203846

Previously unknown details of Sir Paul McCartney's divorce settlement are to be made public, after a court refused Heather Mills' application for secrecy.

The decision is a new blow to Miss Mills, who had wanted the judge's full ruling to remain confidential, arguing that it would compromise their daughter's privacy. Sir Paul had lobbied for it to be released.
    
Heather Mills speaks to the media outside the High Court in central London

A summary of the divorce ruling - which left Miss Mills with a fraction of the sum she had demanded - was made public by the High Court yesterday.

But her application for an appeal against the judge's preference for releasing the full statement was rejected this morning. It is expected to be released later today.

Miss Mills, who represented herself throughout the divorce hearing, was not at the Court of Appeal to hear the decision.

Sir Paul sealed an emphatic victory over his ex-wife yesterday after a judge awarded her 24.3 million, less than a fifth of the 125 million she had sought from their four year marriage.

While Sir Paul, 65, left the High Court with a smile and no comment, his former wife launched an 11-minute tirade against the British judicial system in front of scores of journalists and the television cameras.

Miss Mills, 40, said the couple's daughter Beatrice, four, was now "meant to travel 'B' class while her father travels 'A' class".

She alleged that Sir Paul's legal representative Fiona Shackleton had handled the case in the "worst way you could ever, ever imagine".

But the former model insisted she was happy with the ruling and said she would not contest the judgment.

"It was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and my daughter's future and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping - because you know it has been my life for 20 years."

The ruling by Mr Justice Bennett was imposed after the couple failed to reach an agreement during a six day hearing last month.

It was disclosed that the ex-Beatle had initially offered Miss Mills 15.8 million, which was rejected.

A gagging order imposed on the couple not to talk about the details of their marriage is still in place.

A summary of the judgment, released to the public, revealed that Sir Paul must pay his former wife a lump sum of 16.5 million, which combined with her current assets of 7.8 million, takes the total amount gained from the marriage to 24.3 million.

In addition, Sir Paul will pay 35,000 a year "financial provision" - not including school or nanny fees - for Beatrice until she turns 18.

Dressed in a black suit, white shirt, blue tie and brown three quarter length overcoat, Sir Paul arrived at the High Court at 10.15am looking business-like, 10 minutes before his estranged wife.

Wearing a blue and beige three-piece suit, red shirt, brown laced boots with her blonde hair loose, Miss Mills was accompanied by younger sister Fiona and personal trainer Ben Amigoni.

She emerged from court room 34 shortly after 1pm, telling the media that she intended to speak about the settlement.

When asked if it was over, she replied: "It's over, yeah" before making her way outside to speak to waiting reporters, photographers and television crews.

Sir Paul left the court 10 minutes after Miss Mills, looking smiling and relaxed. When asked about the ruling, he said: "No comment, all will be revealed."

He left via a back entrance of the court, leaving his ex-wife to speak to the cameras. She questioned parts of the judge's ruling, including his finding that Sir Paul was worth 400 million.

"Everybody knows he has been worth 800 million for the last 15 years," she claimed although the judge has ruled that there was "no evidence at all" before him of this.

Miss Mills said the judge ruled they had only lived together since their marriage in June 2002, whereas she claimed it was much earlier than that.

She also claimed that Sir Paul still had influence over where she and Beatrice lived because he had decided on the school their daughter should attend.

Criticising the court, she said the system did not approve of people representing themselves as litigants in person.

"The judge just read it out, he had already decided that he wanted to do this.

"These people are in a club, it is like they want to stick together, and they don't want to see a litigant in person doing well, but he could not award me and my daughter such a low sum because it was impossible."

Miss Mills refused to comment on her feelings about her ex-husband because of Beatrice but added: "I can't say if Paul is cruel. For the sake of my daughter, I can't say that but my sister thinks he is."

Fiona Mills, who stood by he sister throughout, said later: "I just think he didn't need to put her through this. I just think it is really sad.

"Why can't he look after the mother of his child?"

Fiona Mills said Sir Paul wanted the judgment to be released in full because he believed his reputation had been damaged by the bitter nature of the separation.

"He wants to make himself looks good," she said. "To him the most important person his him. It has been a nightmare and I am not exaggerating."

Fiona Mills claimed that leaks to the media in the 22 months since the couple's separation had come from Sir Paul and not her sister, saying: "Paul's team have been putting out these headlines and they keep accusing us of leaks. I have not got one journalist's phone number."

Referring to the early 1970s when Sir Paul took legal action against the rest of the Beatles, she added: "But, he sued three best friends remember."
The Telegraph
18 March 2008
Summary of Sir Paul McCartney divorce settlement with Heather Mills

This is a summary of the judgment handed down today (17 March 2008). It is not a summary of every issue in the judgment. This summary forms no part of the judgment. The court ruled that the judgment should be published but upon Ms Mills' application granted a stay of such publication pending her appeal to the Court of Appeal.

1. The fundamental issue was what financial provision should be made for Ms Mills. She sought an award of almost 125 million. Sir Paul proposed that the wife should exit the marriage with assets of 15.8 million inclusive of any lump sum award.

2. The judge decided that the husband should pay the wife a lump sum of 16.5m which together with her assets of 7.8 million (which include her current properties) means that she exits her marriage with total assets of 24.3 million inclusive of a deemed figure of 500,000 referable to her overspending in the period of separation.

3. The judge found that the total value of all the husband's assets, including his business assets, was about 400m. There was no evidence at all before him that he was worth 800 million.

4. The judge found that although the parties met in 1999 and formed a relationship, the parties did not cohabit from March 2000 but did so from the date of the marriage (11 June 2002). The parties separated in April 2006. The length of the marriage was just under four years.

5. The judge refused to permit either party to raise as an issue the alleged conduct of the other on the broad ground that it was irrelevant.

6. The judge, in undertaking the exercise prescribed by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, decided that the needs of the wife were a factor of magnetic importance.

7. The lump sum of 16.5 million is made up of a sum of 14 million as the capitalised figure for the wife's income needs, which the judge assessed at 600,000 p.a., and a sum of 2.5 million for the wife to buy a property in London.

8. Financial provision for Beatrice consists of a periodical payments order of 35,000 p.a., the husband agreeing to pay for her nanny and her school fees.

9. The court made an order in the following terms: Save for the release of the judgment and Order dated 17 March 2008 the Wife and the Husband and any persons acting on their behalves are strictly prohibited from publishing, disclosing, or in any way revealing without the consent of the other, the evidence, correspondence, transcripts, judgments or Orders in the proceedings concerning (a) the child of the family (b) the main suit © the cross-applications for ancillary relief, and (d) any marital confidences. If consent is not forthcoming then the party seeking publication shall be entitled to seek the permission of a Family Division Judge to do so.

10. The judge expressed his confidence that the media would respect the privacy and confidentiality of the Children Act and ancillary relief proceedings, including evidence and submissions (oral and in writing) given within both sets of proceedings.
BBC News 24
18 March 2008

At a glance: McCartney Mills ruling

Mr Justice Bennett's 58-page High Court ruling on the divorce settlement for Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills has been published.

Here are some of the key points taken verbatim from the report:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The pair announced the end of their marriage in May 2006

The wife and the husband met in the spring of 1999, became engaged on 22 July 2001, married on 11 June 2002, separated on 29 April 2006 and ever since have been engaged in protracted matrimonial litigation.

They have one child, Beatrice born on 28 October 2003.

At my prompting the parties agreed to stay their divorce proceedings… on or after 1 May 2008, by which time they would have been separated for two years… So, at a hearing arranged for 12 May I hope to be able to pronounce a decree nisi of divorce.

THE JUDGE ON MILLS

The wife for her part must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband.

I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-belief. The objective facts simply do not support her case.

I have to say I cannot accept the wife's case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the husband in the middle of 1999.

Her problem stems from the lack of any documentary evidence to support her case as to the level of her earnings. I do not doubt her commitment to charitable causes.

I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband's professional flame and gave him back his confidence.

I accept that since April 2006 the wife has had a bad press. To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character.

She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews in October and November 2007.

MILLS STATES HER CASE

The nub of the wife's case as to compensation is contained in paragraphs 49 and 50 of her affidavit of 30 January 2008:

"Even after we were married I continued to use my own money to live.

"Paul repeatedly told me that he would make sure that I was financially secure, should my money run out. My income stream and my savings did start to run out drastically.

 "Countless lucrative business opportunities were made to me once Paul and I married.

"Sadly, Paul advised against 99% of all of them. He stated that they were only interested in me because of his name and that I should just stick to charity work and he would take car [sic] of me.

"If I had been free to pursue my TV career, especially in the US, then I believe, and have been told by other professionals, I would have made millions. Paul would not allow me to work in the US.

"He would tell me 'we won't be living there and you would be a bad mother if you worked'.

"I believe now that Paul's reason for refusing to support me in doing something career wise was his fear of losing my undivided attention. He also needed to be the centre of attention at all times."

MILLS ON HOW SHE HELPED MCCARTNEY

She places great weight on the contributions she says she has made to counselling the husband's children by his former marriage and to the husband's professional career.

 She "counselled" him through his grieving over Linda. She gave him confidence after Linda's death to restart touring.

She says she helped him write songs. She suggested that he should have an acrylic finger nail because he had worn down his finger nail of his left hand to the point that it bled.

She helped, it is said, with the set design and lighting on his tours. She went on every tour; indeed, she says, he insisted on her coming.

The wife summed up her contribution at paragraph 145 in this way: "I was his full time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist."

THE JUDGE ON MCCARTNEY

The husband's evidence was, in my judgement, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.

He is an icon to millions of people.

The husband's evidence to me was that he had never said that the wife was/would be a bad mother. He told me that she has always been a good mother.

There are… examples, in my judgement, which, contrary to the wife's case, show that the husband was supportive of, or furthered, the wife's career.

MCCARTNEY ON MARRIAGE TO MILLS

After the marriage the nature of their relationship changed. At paragraph 17 of his [Sir Paul's] January 2007 affidavit he said:

"After our marriage, the nature of our relationship to my mind, changed significantly. I was and remain fairly old-fashioned about marriage.

 "We decided upon a proper wedding for that reason - I did not want any suggestion that we were in any way furtive or ashamed about our marriage. I believed it was for life and that it put everything on a very different footing.

"I drew up a Will to include Heather which I executed on 5 June 2002.

"We stopped using contraception the night we were married. There was never any question of us doing so before the wedding.

"Heather had one miscarriage before Beatrice was conceived in the first year of our marriage. Neither of us contemplated children without marriage."

MCCARTNEY ON WEALTH BUILT UP DURING THE MARRIAGE

"Thus it is my case that the wealth built up during our marriage is approximately 39.6 million. This was the result of market growth in the value of the pre-marital assets, and from tours, where I was mainly performing works created prior to my marriage."

THEIR RELATIONSHIP

It must be remembered that, as the husband said in evidence, there was a considerable volatility in their relationship.

There were good times, there were bad times, and the relationship always left in the husband's mind a question whether he and the wife were going to be ultimately right for each other.

From April 2003 the wife received an annual allowance of 360,000 payable quarterly. He made cash gifts to her of 250,000 in December 2002 and again in December 2003. The husband made a will to include the wife.

 The wife says that the husband "turned down many opportunities to help my charities" and that his "refusal to commit" made any of his appearances on behalf of a charity much less effective.

I have to say that the facts as I find them to be do not support the wife's case.

He denied that she had encouraged him to return to touring. He firmly said that she contributed nothing on the tours. She did not design sets or assist with the lighting.

He had a team of specialists for all technical matters. He was shown a DVD where the wife appeared in the credits under "artistic coordination". He said that that was a favour to the wife, a romantic gesture.

The husband, I find, was generous towards the wife.

 He denied he had lost his confidence [after the death of his first wife]. Her [the wife's] case that in some way she single-handedly saved him was exaggerated.

The wife, as the husband said, enjoys being the centre of attention.

I am prepared to accept that her presence was emotionally supportive to him but to suggest that in some way she was his "business partner" is, I am sorry to have to say, make-belief.

THE IMPACT OF LINDA MCCARTNEY'S DEATH

In 1998 Linda died of cancer. I have no doubt that he was deeply upset by her death.

Repeatedly in his evidence the husband described how even during his relationship with the wife in 1999 to 2002 he was grieving for Linda.

I have no doubt the husband found the wife very attractive. But equally I have no doubt that he was still very emotionally tied to Linda.

It is not without significance that until the husband married the wife he wore the wedding ring given to him by Linda. Upon being married to the wife he removed it and it was replaced by a ring given to him by the wife.

He agreed that the wife together with his family and friends had helped him through his grieving for Linda.

He said that for about a year after Linda's death he was in a sad state and that the wife exhibited the normal reactions of any kindly person.

CONDUCT DURING THE MARRIAGE

I regret to say that I strongly suspect that the motives of both wife and husband in trying to introduce the conduct of each other into these financial relief proceedings has got far more to do with the impending libel trials than the instant proceedings.

On one side is the wife's case of the husband running a media campaign to smear her; on the other is the husband's case that it is the wife who is running a media campaign to smear him.

JUDGE'S FINAL CONCLUSION

I am… confident that the media will respect the privacy and confidentiality of both sets of proceedings. Beyond that nothing more needs to be said.


JUDGEMENT IN FULL
Read the full judgement in Mills-McCartney case [267k]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_03_08_mccartney_mills.pdf
I wouldn't call having to pay this woman 24.3 million a "triumph".
The Telegraph
19 March 2008

Sir Paul McCartney triumphs at divorce court
By Caroline Gammell

Sir Paul McCartney sealed an emphatic victory over his ex-wife Heather Mills after a judge awarded her a fraction of the money she demanded from their acrimonious divorce.

Miss Mills sought nearly 125 million from their four year marriage but was awarded 24.3 million in one of the highest profile cases in decades.

etc, etc, etc…
The Telegraph
18 March 2008

Lady McCartney's statement in quotes

Immediately after leaving the High Court, Lady McCartney made a rambling statement to reporters.Here are selected quotes:

"I just want to thank everybody for being so supportive to me, especially my sister.
advertisement

"The only reason I'm appealing the judgment tomorrow morning… is because the judgment involves private secure matters of my daughter: where she goes to school, what she does, everything about her is in there.

"It has gone against everything to do with human rights, the section six, it has gone against everything to do with the confidentiality papers, it has gone against everything to do with the private family matters.

"He (The Judge) also said Paul is only worth 400 million and that is what he said he believed him to be worth.

"Everybody knows he has been worth 800 million for the last 15 years … and I wasn't allowed any access to any of our accounts, nothing. I wasn't allowed to look at what we spent, where we went, I was locked out of every home - I won't go into all the horrific details of what has happened because I'm just glad it's over.

"What I'd like to say, being a campaigning girl, is anybody wanting to go through a divorce, try your hardest, man or woman, to settle it immediately.

"You don't go through this unless you have to.

"I'm so, so glad it's over, it was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and my daughter's future and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping and making a difference with - because you know it has been my life for 20 years.

"I just want me and my daughter to have a life and not be followed every single day. I just want to give it closure.

"Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well, it's against everything that they ever wish, so when they write the judgment up, they're never going to make it look in favour.

"These people are in a club, it's like they want to stay together and they don't want a litigant in person to do well but he could not award me and my daughter such a low sum because it was actually impossible."

Asked if it had been a mistake to represent herself, she replied: "Not at all. Lawyers couldn't get anywhere near this figure.

"If you are in a situation where people don't see eye to eye or where things get out of hand, you can be a litigant in person. It's not easy but just do your research and save yourself a fortune.

"But all of you that have researched know that it was always going to be a figure between 20 and 30 million, Paul was offering a lot less than that, which you'll see in the judgment, and very much last minute to put me and Beatrice sadly through this … incredibly sad."

Asked if she felt that Sir Paul had been "cruel", she replied: "I can't say that for the sake of my daughter. But my sister does."

"I'm going to go and be with my daughter, because I took so much time away from her."

Several more McCartney - Mills articles

And several more articles about this case.
The Telegraph
18 March 2008

Full transcript of Heather Mills' statement

This is a transcript of Heather Mills' comments to reporters outside the High Court:

First of all I just want to say I'm so glad it's over. It was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and my daughter's future and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping and making a difference with - because you know it has been my life for 20 years.
    
Heather Mills and her sister Fiona outside court

Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well, it's against everything that they ever wish, so when they write the judgment up they're never going to try and make it look in my favour.

But all of you that have researched know that it was always going to be a figure between 20 and 30 million.

Paul was offering a lot less than that, which you'll see in the judgment, and very much last minute to put me and Beatrice sadly through this - it's been incredibly sad.

So we're very, very, very pleased. And what I'd like to say, being a campaigning girl, is anybody wanting to go through a divorce, try your hardest, man or woman, to settle it immediately.

And if you're in an impossible situation - which anybody listening will know that, people don't see eye to eye, things get out of hand - you can be a litigant in person.

It's not easy, but just make sure you do all your research, save yourselves a fortune.

(Law firm) Mishcon (de Reya) wanted to charge me an extra 600,000 just to do this trial, which could quite easily go to charity.

And I agreed before the FDR (final dispute resolution) to let them go if they didn't win at the final dispute resolution, which they didn't.

It was an amicable parting, we had planned it for months, whatever you read, and I'm still very good friends with (Mishcon de Reya lawyer) Anthony Julius, that I very much respect.

But he was dealing with an impossible side. (Sir Paul McCartney's lawyer) Fiona Shackleton has very sadly handled this in the worst manner you could ever, ever imagine.

She has called me many, many names before even meeting me when I was in a wheelchair.

So I recommend, do it yourself, be a litigant in person, the power of one - the Law Courts do not want me to say this.

And the only reason I'm coming out to be honest, if the judgment had been sealed today to remain private I actually wouldn't be standing here, because we have a gagging order on us not to reveal marital confidences.

That was something that Paul really wanted to be put into this. So I wouldn't be standing here.

But I'm basically standing here because Paul is insistent on the whole judgment being put out.

I've said if the whole judgment goes out, then all the transcripts have to go out because it's going to be written in a way that they will try and make it look like I wasn't successful.

But all in all we came out with nearly 25 million. I know you want to know the figure. I'm allowed to say this because this is the summary.

The only reason I'm appealing the judgment tomorrow morning - which because I've got my daughter I'm going to get somebody else to do because I'm exhausted from all this - is because the judgment involves private secure matters of my daughter: where she goes to school, what she does, everything about her is in there.

And they didn't even do a redacted version to keep Beatrice out of it.

So it has gone against everything to do with human rights, the section six, it has gone against everything to do with the confidentiality papers, it has gone against everything to do with the private family matters.

They tried to compare it with a case called Sorrell vs Sorrell (a divorce settlement from 2005). There are no young children in that case. There is in this.

When you go into court, and this is where it's very important, they've actually started to set a precedent, that we lose our right to privacy when we step in a family court by doing this - actually making the judgment (public in) full.

Because normally you go into court and you expect complete privacy in a family court. Two days into the hearing, they threw up, 'maybe we can compare it to Sorrell vs Sorrell'.

And I was like, why would you need to do that, this is private. They said, 'well, we'll let you know at the end of trial'.

So they gave me no chance to not go to trial. They already had planned, the judge had his whole judgment statement written up before we even did our submissions. He just read it out - so he'd already decided that he was going to do this.

These people are in a club, it's like they want to stay together and they don't want to see a litigant in person doing well. But he could not award me and my daughter such a low sum because it was actually impossible.

I'll read it to you. Sir Paul offered me - I'll have to go back to it because it's been a while - 15.8 (million) all in, including properties.

We got 24.5 (million) - I don't remember the figures because the most important thing for me was just to get this over and done with.

I'm not appealing against the judgment, no, not at all, because it's not worth it. I'm appealing against the publication of it because it has so many details of me and my daughter in it.

It will be published. That's why we're appealing. It has a stay on it until the appeal tomorrow, but this summary will come out today.

And I'll read the summary to you. He proposed 15.8 (million), and the judge decided that I should get 23.7 (million), it says.

And then what they wanted to do was, because I'd spent money on security, they do a thing called "add back".

Because they say me and my daughter don't need security, and Paul might give it for two years, but that's it, which you're going to read about in the judgment, otherwise I'd never put… Obviously I will use my funds to get security.

But Beatrice only gets 35,000 a year. And so she obviously is meant to travel B class while her father travels A class - but obviously I will pay for that.

(Question: was it a mistake to represent yourself?)

Not at all. The lawyers were not getting anywhere near this figure in the FDR, they couldn't get anywhere near this figure. There was no more evidence.

Apparently we didn't live together until the day we were married, and the judge believed that even though I'm registered at Westminster Council living with Paul since the 29th of March 2000 and even though many of you were outside Cavendish Avenue in July when we announced our engagement.

So a lot of strange things have been going on behind the scenes. I obviously had all the evidence to prove we cohabited and lived together. It's been followed by the world's media.

(Question: do you regret representing yourself?)

No, I don't regret representing myself. I'm just glad it's over. And I hope this is reported fairly and balanced. I'm so so happy with it.

(Question: what are your feelings toward Sir Paul?)

I've got no comment. And also, what the judge also said, as well as saying we never lived together, he also said that Paul is only worth 400 million and that is what he said he believes him to be worth.

Everybody knows he has been worth 800 (million) for the last 15 years. So we know that has been… and I wasn't allowed any access to any of our accounts, nothing.

I wasn't allowed to look at what we spent, where we went, I was locked out of every home - I won't go into all the horrific details of what has happened because I'm just glad it's over.

And I really hope now that me and my daughter can have a life and not be followed every single day and that is why I've come out, to give it closure.

Apart from one television thing (an interview with GMTV last October) I've stayed quiet for 21 months, I've been told that we can speak now. If the judgment was kept private than I wouldn't be out here speaking.

I wanted to keep the judgment private. Paul has just said he wants it public, that's the only reason I'm talking. He's always wanted it public because he wants to look like he's this generous Sir Paul.

I'm appealing on the judgment being made public, not on the judgment, I'm very very happy with the judgment.

35,000 doesn't include her (Beatrice's) school fees. He wants her to fly five times a year on holiday - 32,000 for two people on return fares, it costs, so that's obviously not meant to happen any more for her. It's very sad.

Basically Paul has always wanted Beatrice to go to a state school - a private school, sorry.

He insisted that I move to that area even though he tore the cabin down with a 106 demolition agreement. But he's pretending it was me. If you look online you can see that he signed a voluntary demolition agreement to tear the cabin down.

Then we moved to Brighton, and then he went to try and get my daughter, joint residency, when I already shared her 50-50, there was no need, forced us back to the school.

That's why she has to go that school. It's nothing to do with me wanting her to go to state school or private school, it's the school that Paul chose. So in that way he's got everything that he wanted. But that's what happens with powerful people.

But I say, be a litigant in person - just don't go through this unless you have to. But I'm really happy with the outcome.

(Question: do you think Sir Paul has been cruel?)

I can't say that for the sake of my daughter. My sister (Fiona) does.

(Question: what are you going to do now?)

I'm going to go and be with my daughter because I took so much time away from her.

And I just want to thank everybody, and incredibly my sister for being so supportive to me. Every time I look at her, I want to cry.

(Question: Are you going to leave England?)

I can't leave England. I've always wanted to keep my daughter near her father, and believe me if I tried to go he'd have an injunction on me in a second. So there's no point.

And I love England, I've got all my friends and family here. And I just want to thank everybody for their support and finalising this, so at least we can start getting some really good headlines on the front pages, of important issues and matters instead of our boring divorce. I'm sure everybody at home is fed up with hearing a million figures that never existed.

This is the end result, and thank you very much.
The Telegraph
19 March 2008

Heather Mills torn to shreds by Sir Paul McCartney divorce judge
By Caroline Gammell and Gordon Rayner

Heather Mills has seen her reputation left in tatters after the High Court judge presiding over her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney tore into her character, accusing her of "make-belief", inconsistency and inaccuracy.

Mr Justice Bennett said she was a "less than impressive witness" during the six-day hearing last month who "wholly exaggerated" the extent of her wealth before she met her now ex-husband.

Miss Mills, 40, had sought 125 million from her four year marriage to 65-year-old Sir Paul, but was awarded just a fifth of that figure - 24.3 million.

Mr Justice Bennett said the former model was not only "devoid of reality", but had proved to be her "own worst enemy" by making claims for a settlement which were "ridiculous".

In contrast, he described the former Beatle's evidence as balanced and said he "expressed himself moderately, though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger" during the proceedings.

Intimate details of the couple's relationship were divulged in the report, including the revelation that Miss Mills suffered a miscarriage in the first year of their marriage before she gave birth to Beatrice.

The 58-page ruling was handed down on Monday but only released in full yesterday after Miss Mills lost a Court of Appeal application to prevent it being published.
    
Heather Mills speaks to the media outside the High Court in central London

She argued that the lengthy ruling compromised their daughter Beatrice's privacy, but Lord Justices Thorpe and Wall dismissed her objection, saying they would not interfere with the Judge's decision to publish the ruling in its entirety.

In his judgement, Mr Justice Bennett said Miss Mills had lost her sense of reality when she met and married Sir Paul.

"The wife for her part must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband," he said. "I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-belief."

The judge described the couple's relationship as one of "considerable volatility" before he added: "There were good times, there were bad times, and the relationship always left in the husband's mind a question whether he and the wife were going to be ultimately right for each other."

Mr Justice Bennett rejected Miss Mills' claim that Sir Paul had held back her potentially lucrative career and said: "I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife's career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite.

"He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as I find them do not in any way support her claim."

The judge said Miss Mills wanted to maintain the lifestyle she had while married to Sir Paul as part of the "me-too" syndrome which saw her vastly exaggerate and "over-egg" the cost of her needs.

He dismissed her claim for 627,000 a year for "charitable expenditure" including flights, as well as her budget of 500,000 for holidays.

Although the acrimonious settlement has now been decided, Mr Bennett said a decree nisi of divorce would not be pronounced until May 12.
The Telegraph
19 March 2008

Heather Mills is only fooling herself
By Jan Moir

On the pavement outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Monday, Heather Mills finally unravelled in front of the world. Her eyes rolled like a crazy foal's. Her scattergun mouth moved too quickly for her brain to keep up.

"He got everything he wanted!" she cried. "No one wants to see me doing well!" As the treacherous incantation continued, her thin lips twitched and spooled, giving vent to the Geordie-accented fury that could not be placated by a 24 million payout, plus extras.

It was a horrible sight, like watching a pair of pink worms doing the tango while hooked up to some malign electric current. Fzzzzzt! Step away from the cage when the lady is in this crazy mood.

Sadly, Heather's spewing mental ugliness and vaunting self-interest have become a part of our cultural landscape over the past year or so. In the background, the great, empty prairie of her delusion stretches to the horizon and beyond.

Here she is, the plucky "campaigning girl" who single-handedly took on a Beatle and the entire English justice system and made a right old hash of it from the word go. How could she not?

I once appeared in court as a witness for a litigant in person, and can only liken the situation to that of walking naked into a cave full of half-starved tigers with raw liver strapped all over your body.

Just accept that you are going to be ripped to shreds, and move on. Don't blame the judge or - classy! - pour water over opposing lawyers when they get the better of your muddled arguments. They are only following ancient procedures, which you, Heather, must at least try to study and understand.

Yet Mills is the kind of person who seems to see conspiracy in every shadow, cowardice in the actions of others and only eternal, selfless heroism in herself. Now that she has lost, she is at pains to explain that she did not embark on this course of legal action for herself. Perish the thought!

The former Lady McCartney fought in court not for the fortune she originally demanded, but for her daughter's sake and for women.

One gets the impression that some people, such as Mills and Paul Burrell, see English courts as some kind of publicity appearance to be manipulated and exploited. In failing to understand the gravity of justice or the full power of the law, they deserve their humiliated fates.

St Heather of the Downtrodden would be funny if she were not quite so toxic, and is particularly odious when continually citing her "charity" work as a justification for everything she does and says.

As Heather apparently sees it, she should be the Britannia on our coins, the vegetarian flame of justice, the tireless campaigner for good deeds in dark corners.

Since the day she met Sir Paul McCartney, she has carefully camouflaged her own ambition with altruism, but if she is still fooling anyone, it can only be herself.

Meanwhile, despite his divorce court victory and occasional thumbs aloft smiles to the cameras, McCartney has the emotionally scalded demeanour of a man who has been shackled to a runaway hyena for years, and only just managed to escape with his life.

Now that the judgment in the McCartney-Mills divorce case has been made public, we can begin to glimpse the depths of his ordeal. In an attempt to win a 125 million settlement, Mills claimed that her contribution to the marriage had been exceptional, and that she had been a full-time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and, oh dear, psychologist.

It makes you wonder how the marriage could ever have failed in the first place. Now that Mr Justice Bennett has described Mills as a devoid of reality and a fantasist, many will say that now is the time to start feeling sorry for her.

Not me. Heather Mills has travelled a long, hard road to this moment of utter public humiliation. She has obfuscated, exaggerated, lied and lied again without caring for the feelings of others. The tragedy is that she truly is a remarkable woman - just not in the way that she thinks.
Heather Mills poured water over Paul McCartney's female barrister's head:
The Telegraph
19 March 2008

Heather Mills and Paul McCartney: 'Waterfall'
By Caroline Gammell

The water thrown at Sir Paul McCartney's lawyer at the end of his acrimonious divorce settlement sounded like a "waterfall", Heather Mills' legal aide has said.

David Rosen, solicitor advocate who represented Miss Mills in her failed bid to keep the judge's ruling private, said the drenching of Fiona Shackleton came at the end of Monday's high pressure hearing. Although he claimed not to see the actual event, he described the moment the 500-an-hour solicitor was soaked.

"All I know is that there were not any shower facilities and Fiona Shackleton's hair seemed to be quite wet. Everyone heard it, it was like a waterfall.

"I didn't quite see what happened but it was towards the end. It was an undignified wet. Everyone would have heard but I don't know who saw it."

When asked about Mrs Shackleton's reaction, he said: "I wouldn't like to comment but I don't think she was too happy, there were no screaming matches. But I don't think anyone was particularly that amused.

"I can't say what was going on in Heather's mind but I presume she must have been provoked in some way."

He said Miss Mills, who lost a leg in an accident in 1993, had become upset by claims apparently allegedly made by Mrs Shackleton that her disability was some "kind of an act".

Mr Rosen, who works for north London solicitors Darlingtons, said Miss Mills had made the right decision in representing herself.

"This was a very high profile case, terribly high pressure with sleepless nights," he said.

"This woman did admirably and she conducted herself for the most part admirably.

"Most litigants in person could never handle a case of this magnitude. She handled herself extremely well against one of the finest legal teams.

"Whatever you think of her, she is a very intelligent woman. She was more than capable of running this case herself and she really did an admirable job."

Mr Rosen, who took on the case after it was referred to him by a solicitor colleague, stood in for Miss Mills shortly before the end of Monday's three hour hearing after she became "overwhelmed".

"I think she was just overcome by emotion, it was a very hard slog. It was about 10-15 minutes before the end. I was sort of asked and pushed at the same time. Everyone looked at me and it was suggested that I should take over.

"She didn't break down, I think she was just overwhelmed that the judgement in full was going to be released."
The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)
17 March 2008

Paul McCartney ordered to pay Heather Mills AUD$52m

Making a splash ... dry-haired Fiona Shackleton arrives at court with Sir Paul McCartney (top) and leaves looking decidely bedraggled (bottom).

Picture: Making a splash … dry-haired Fiona Shackleton arrives at court with Sir Paul McCartney (top) and leaves looking decidely bedraggled (bottom).

The McCartney-Mills divorce hearing ended in farce when Heather Mills reportedly tipped a glass of water over the Beatle's posh lawyer.

The Sun reported that a "cackling" Mills splashed out at Sir Paul McCartney's solicitor "as her divorce fury boiled over".

Mills allegedly walked over to lawyer Fiona Shackleton at the end of the hearing in London's High Court overnight.

Ms Shackleton, who had arrived with a neat bouffant hairstyle in the morning, left looking planily bdraggled -as these pictures show.

Mills refused to admit pouring the water, but joked that Ms Shackleton, 51, had been "baptised in court".

And a source told The Sun: "Heather tipped the water over Fiona's head. She didn't throw it. It was cool, calm and collected. It trickled down Fiona's neck. She waited until the hearing was over. The judge would have taken a very dim view of it if he'd seen it."

Love turns sour

McCartney, 65, married the former model and charity campaigner Mills, 40, in 2002 but they split four years later, blaming media intrusion into their private lives.

They have a daughter, Beatrice, aged four.

Speaking outside the court, Mills criticised McCartney's lawyer, accusing her of handling the case badly and of calling her names.

"I am so glad it is over," she added. "We are very, very pleased."

The split was fought out under a remorseless media spotlight with McCartney, a founder of the world's most famous pop group, pitted against the outspoken Mills, target of lurid tales in the press about her colourful past.

She hit back, saying she had been driven to the brink of suicide because the media had branded her a "wh0re" and a "gold-digger."  

Mills said she was appealing the publication of the judgment in full, as she's worried about the safety of Beatrice. She could be back in court as early as tomorrow morning to mount that legal challenge.

"I wanted to keep the judgement private. Paul has just said he wants it public, that's the only reason I'm talking. He's always wanted it public because he wants to look like he's this generous Sir Paul."

When asked whether 65-year-old Paul had been cruel, she replied: "I can't say that for the sake of my daughter, but my sister does. I just want to thank everybody, especially my sister Fiona, for being so supportive for me."

Charity campaigner Heather also admitted she was "glad" the divorce is over and insisted "it was an incredible result to secure mine and my daughter's future".

As part of the deal, she will receive 14 million for herself and 2.5 million to buy a house in London. Heather was also awarded assets of 7.8 million.

The settlement will also see Paul cover Beatrice's nanny and school fees and pay his daughter 35,000 a year.

A spokesman for Paul said the singer would not be commenting on the settlement.

- With AFP, Reuters, BANG Showbiz
Western Standard (Canada)
19 March 2008

It's a Strange World we live in: Heather Mills v. Ashley Dupre
By Grant Brown PhD

It is a strange world we live in where a man can be ordered to pay a woman $50 million after a mere 4-year marriage, and the man is seen as the winner of the legal battle.  

If you work it out, Heather Mills "earned" $1,400 per hour for every hour of her marriage to Paul McCartney.  That tops what [NY prostitute] Ashley Dupre was paid by [disgraced exNY Governor] Elliot Spitzer on an hourly basis. According to the summary of the judgment that was released, Mills was seeking $7,000 per hour ($250 million) - i.e. the amount earned by 7-diamond-rated escorts at New York's Emeror's Club. She has a high opinion of herself, evidently.  

Details that have come out about the judgment, and Mills' reaction to it, don't paint a flattering picture of the ungrateful ex-wife. She is reported to have dumped a glass of water over McCartney's lawyer's head in the courtroom - histrionic behaviour that would never be tolerated by a man in a divorce court. After delivering an 11-minute diatribe against the process and the judgment on the courthouse steps, Mills said she would not appeal the ruling and would oppose the release of any more details to the public. McCartney's only comment was, "All will be revealed." One surmises that the reasons for judgment were not particularly kind to Mills.

As usual, the aggrieved ex-wife's first instinct is to pit the child against the father. Mills complained bitterly after court that she would only get $70,000 per year for little Beatrice in child support. "Beatrice will have to settle for traveling in coach while her dad goes first class," she said. As if. No wonder the judge found her position on almost every issue to be unreasonable.  

Still, if Mills were Canadian, she would have a point. By our standards, $70,000 per year in child support is a pittance for someone of McCartney's wealth and income. You would only have to be making about $700,000 per year in Canada to be on the hook for $70,000 in child support for one child. With an income in the order of $40 million per year, McCartney would be paying upwards of $340,000 per month - per month! - in child support according to the Federal Child Support Guidelines.  

No wonder Erin Pizzey has described Canada as "the scariest country on the planet" for its treatment of men.
Also see…

Judge slams Mills's muddled grasp on reality
By Arjun Ramachandran
The Sydney Morning Herald
10 March 2008
 
Heather Mills admits soaking lawyer
Herald Sun (Melbourne)
19 March 2008
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets