Times Online
Star musicians and your favourite Times writers at the Albert Hall

Mr Justice Bennett issued a summary of his judgment handed down today after hearing the Sir Paul McCartney/Heather Mills divorce case in private.
The summary reads: "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.
"The judge decided that the husband should pay the wife a lump sum of £16.5 million 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.
"The judge found that the total value of all the husband’s assets, including his business assets, was about £400 million. There was no evidence at all before him that he was worth £800 million.
"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 (June 11, 2002). The parties separated in April 2006. The length of the marriage was just under four years.
"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. 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.
"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 as £600,000 per annum, and a sum of £2.5 million for the wife to buy a property in London.
"Financial provision for Beatrice consists of a periodical payments order of £35,000 per annum, the husband agreeing to pay for her nanny and her school fees.
"The court made an order in the following terms: Save for the release of the judgment and order dated March 17 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, (c) 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.
"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.“
(At the start of the judge’s summary, he said that the court had granted Ms Mills a stay of publication of the full judgment pending her appeal to the Court of Appeal.)
Follow our three athletes' progress in their preparations for the London Triathlon, and pick up training tips and more
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers

Overseas contacts and local business information
£129,500
Bentley Edinburgh
£79,850
Mercedes-Benz of Northampton
£26,995
Unit 1, Woodfield Business Unit, Kidderminster Road, Ombersley, Worcester.
Great car insurance deals online
90k + Bonus + Options
Confidential
London
£23,716 +
Highways Agency
National
£
£43,405 - £48,228 pa
Notting Hill Housing
London
£30,000 base, £100,000 OTE
Riches Consulting
London/South
with annexe accommodation and 5.25 acres
£1,100,000
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Studios £33K, 1 Beds £60K, 2 beds £79K
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
it all appears Heather mills took advantage a very velnerable man who was still mourning his wife of many years and then for her own gain took advantage of him/his children and his wealth including what the late wife had worked hard for her children. what a shame.
serena forde, birmingham, uk
She may have done charity work previous to and during her marriage and that's all fine and good...But surely, any charity work she does since her divorce, will be marred by the fact that if she gives financially, then it's more than likely she will be giving Paul's money away!!! Moreover, her authenticity and character must be brought into question, regarding her charity work and whether or not she is doing it to bolster her own image in the eyes of the public....If anyone robbed a bank and then said they were going to be giving some off it away to charity, would that be ok?
John, Liverpool, England
I feel a little bad for her..she never had a chance right from the begining. No one really knows what happened between them...she is obviously in a lot of pain....and Paul doesnt appear to give a toss.... thats the woman he claimed to love and had a child with...I dont know I would expect a little more from him as he is the older and more mature of the two and also the father of their child, maybe giving her what she wanted from day one would have solved all the problems and protected that poor child from all this. I am just curious though: Why did he change the locks in the house they had shared when he knew that his daughter was coming over? ......
ang, London,
I know there was only one lady that came out of that court room. And it was definitely not Heather. Fiona Shackleton behaved like a true lady. Holding her head up high. Fiona actually looks lovely with her hair slicked back in the newer style. Let us hope Heather gets tired of all the media attention and goes away quietly. Enough has been said about her.
Libby, Adelaide, Australia
Although I'm completely indifferent about the whole issue, I was intrigued about the fact that Heather made several references during her diatribe on the court steps to her charity work and to her donations to Charity, particularly to the fact that Mishcon's proposed Court fees of £600.000 could have been given to charity.
Wow.........does she really give a lot of her time and money to good causes ? Are we all misjudging her simply due to her abrasive aggressive attitude ?
Bert, Bushey, Herts
Any marriage breakup is sad but in this case heather has if you recall, been seen carrying cameras, appearing on Tv, claiming she has bad press etc - well Heather you dug your own hole and as for the comments on the court steps - I suggest you find a hideaway somewhere because you have just made yourself in most peoples eyes a very hurtful person who nobody wishes to know
Tony, Spalding, UK
Most people are against her Alex, because she has ripped Paul off...you don't do what she did if you have/had love for somebody...she mentions the impact it has had on her daughter because she wants to try and gain public sympathy for her position..why did she put her daughter through this? why didn't she leave the marriage and live off her own stated wealth and provide for her own daughter, as opposed to milking a British Legend...Paul would never have seen his daughter without money anyhow....
Devin, Manchester, England
Gosh, do you think Heather can get by with only millions of pounds?...why do old men marry a much younger woman and then are suprised it doesn't work out?So predictable.....
B J Rainey, Mesa, Arizona
Why is everybody against her? We don't know what really happened between them. Everybody likes Paul because is a good singer, but that's about it. A man who treats his ex-wife with such contempt disregarding the impact that this might have on her daughter, frankly is not better than her. Besides, what the judge said wasn't extraordinary.
Alex, Oxford, England
In the vernacular Sir Paul would understand "Macca you was robbed".
Stephen , Little Sutton, UK/Cheshire
If, like Linda, she had helped him to make his fortune, one might have felt more sympathy for her, but as all she has done has been to help him spend his children's inheritance, one can't help but feel that she has still ripped him off. What made her think she was worth more, God only knows.
Kate, Cheshire,
PRENUPS are not binding in the UK and I fully agree with this. They should only ever be persuasive. Marriage is not a contract.
mick juiceberger, essex, essex
Shows she didn't truly love him, cos if she did, then she would have left the marriage without trying to get any money out of Paul and people would have thought more of her..As it is, it shows she was just trying to get money out of him and as such, she deserves no respect from joe public whatsoever!!!
All you need is LOVE, eh, Heather? Lol....
Long live Paul..and John & George & Ringo...
Devin Oakden, Ashton-U-Lyne, Manchester, England
She showed her true colours yesterday. Why didn't any of the gathered press have the gumption to ask her did she marry him for his money!!!! Of course she did - when asked how she felt about him I would have expected her to say she still loved him - he is much better off without her. Marry a Liverpool lass next time Macca!
Sophie Tucker, Liverpool, England
Is it just me, or did Heather in fact violate the court's order in her rant on the stairs outside the High Court? That is how it reads to me, but I am not a lawyer. No doubt I misunderstand the order and would need a lawyer or Heather to explain it to me.
James, Florida, USA
Does nobody understand this ... PRE-NUP CONTRACTS ARE NOT VIABLE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ... they are not worth the paper they are agreed upon!!!
Steve, Horsham, UK / West Sussex
Wow, really guys with lots of money.... you must be a special kind of stupid to get involved without prenup... worst still even get married.
tk, london,
According to what the judge says in this statement Heather should shut up now. Can the judge please enforce that , please.
What kind of person has a press conference on the steps of the court house after a divorce settlement? Does she want us to feel bad for her and her multimillion pund settlement? Sorry, I can't. Don't have time, I am too busy working for a living.
Marie, NY, USA
Five words John: not valid in the UK.
AC, London, UK
Somehow I am not surprised that Ms. Mills' wanted to make a 'statement' so quickly after the trial. She has been well compensated for her 'ordeal' with Sir McCartney. Maybe it was too much to hope that she would at least have the decency to make a quiet and dignified exit from the court. I cringe at her explanation of parting with her lawyers being that she could divert the six hundred thousand pounds to charity instead of the lawyers' fees. She would do well to remember that this entire episode had nothing to do with any other cause, besides her own.
Anum, Toronto, Canada
Too expensive to live in London. Divorce your wife somewhere else!
Bob, Bobtown,
Couples, families, even companies need to actively talk to each other on a daily basis. If a conflict arrises, talking is the way to a compromise. Keep talking it´s a good habit.
The type of language we use with each other is very powerful, learn to ask for what you want from your partner instead of what you don´t want them to do. For example: "When you are angry and are talking to me you are to be polite. "
Life is to short to complain about small petty things that end up being big on the conflict list. Thinking positive is a great tool for the mind to keep the stress levels in check. Relax, learn to be flexible and appreciate the non perfect person you are married to or anyone around you. We only come around once in this world, so try to use positive thoughts with the "self dialog". Rest, good food, positive thoughts, friends (funny ones), plenty of sleep, exercise, fresh air and take the time to talk to each other. It´s more fun to live together than alone Paul & Mills.
nina svanberg, Lulea, Sweden
Pre nups aren't valid in English law. I think Heather may get in trouble for her comments outside court...
Mark Foster, london,
One word Paul - Prenup.
John D. Richards III, Salt Lake, USA/Utah