The
judgement in full | The
best extracts
The High Court judge who presided over the Mills-McCartney divorce battle
accused Heather Mills of "make-belief" today in a devastating
judgment that the former model tried unsuccessfully to suppress.
The 58-page ruling from Mr Justice Bennett was published online after Ms Mills
lost a legal challenge that would have kept it secret. In it the judge
accused her of being "less than candid" in her evidence to court
and a "less than impressive witness".
Ms Mills labelled the judge’s criticism “outrageous” this evening, but she
admitted that during the hearing she had poured water over Fiona Shackleton,
a member of Paul McCartney’s legal team.
She was yesterday awarded a total of £24.3 million by the court, a lump sum of
£16.5 million plus assets of £.7.8 million. She had claimed £125 million
from the former Beatle after a marriage that broke down after just four
years.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Bennett rejected Ms Mills's claim that she had
been independently wealthy before she met Sir Paul in 1999. He also revealed
that the couple are not yet formally divorced: they have agreed to stay
their divorce proceedings until May 1, by which time they will have been
separated for two years and can get a straightforward "decree nisi".
Mr Justice Bennett said that Ms Mills, who lost her left foot after a road
accident 15 years ago, was a "strong-willed and determined personality"
who had shown great fortitude in overcoming her disability.
In a judgment written before Ms Mills's astonishing misbehaviour in court
yesterday – when she poured a carafe of water over her husband's main
divorce lawyer – Mr Justice Bennett said that she had conducted her case
with a "steely, yet courteous, determination".
But he added: "Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having
studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for
the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own
case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written
and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than
candid.
"Overall she was a less than impressive witness."
By contrast, the judge described Sir Paul’s evidence as "balanced".
He said: "He expressed himself moderately though at times with
justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest."
Mr Justice Bennett said that the "battle lines" were set out in the
settlement offers made by each party before the final hearing in the case.
Sir Paul offered a total of £15.8 million – to be reduced to £15 million
because of his wife's conduct since their separation.
Ms Mills claimed £125 million, based upon "reasonable needs"
for herself and her daughter of £3.25 million a year plus up to £12 million
for a house in London, £3 million for a property in New York and up to
£750,000 to buy an office in Brighton, where she spends most of her time.
The judge said that Ms Mills appeared to feel that she was entitled for the
rest of her life to spend at the same "rate" as her husband. "Although
she has strongly denied it her case boils down to the syndrome of 'me, too'
or "if he has it, I want it too'," he wrote.
He was particularly scathing about the role that Ms Mills claimed to have
played during the marriage, offering advice to her husband and his older
children and helping him resurrect his career.
In written evidence, Ms Mills told the court: "I was his full-time wife,
mother, love, confidante, business partner and psychologist." Mr
McCartney was said to have agreed that Ms Mills helped him grieve for Linda,
his wife of 30 years who died in 1998.
Mr Justice Bennett wrote: "I have to say that the wife's evidence that in
some way she was the husband's 'psychologist', even allowing for hyperbole,
is typical of her make-belief. I reject her evidence that she, vis-a-vis the
husband, was anything more than a kind and loving person who was deeply in
love with him, helped him through his grieving and like any new wife tried
to integrate into their relationship the children of his former marriage.
"I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband's
professional flame and gave him back his confidence."
The judge backed Sir Paul’s assertion that their "true and settled
relationship" began upon marriage in June 2002 and not, as Miss Mills
asserted, in March 2000.
In assessing their relationship before their marriage, the judge said the
background was of importance. "The husband’s wife, Linda, had died in
1998. Their marriage endured for some 30 years. 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."
The judge said it was "not without significance" that until Sir Paul
married Ms Mills, 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. 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 do not support her case."
On the issue of claims for compensation for her lost career, Ms Mills gave
evidence that Sir Paul had advised her "against 99 per cent" of
what she described as "countless, lucrative business opportunities"
made to her once they had married.
In a written statement before the judge, she said: "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 care of me."
But the judge ruled: "I find that, far from the husband dictating to and
restricting the wife’s career and charitable activities, he did the exact
opposite, as he says. 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. Compensation therefore does not
arise."
Mr Justice Bennett said 65-year-old Sir Paul is "extraordinarily talented"
and has been famous throughout the world for many years.
"During his marriage to Linda, the husband’s wealth was accumulated. By
the time he met the wife in 1999 he was fabulously wealthy by even the
standards of the very rich. "He had accumulated valuable paintings and
artwork, and properties in England and the USA. He business enterprises were
extensive," he wrote.
In contrast, the judge said the source of the wife’s assets was "very
largely as a result of the husband’s generosity towards her".
Although Ms Mills disputes the figures, Mr Justice Bennett said that Sir Paul
had provided documentary evidence from his accountants about his wealth,
which was put at £387 million. That included property worth £34 million,
bank accounts worth £15 million, investments worth £34 million and business
other business interests put at £241 million.
Sir Paul, 65, also has a pensions pot valued at £36 million.
The judge said that one of the properties in her name, Thames Reach, never had
a mortgage on it. But Ms Mills had requested £480,000 to pay off the amount
outstanding.
Nicholas Mostyn, QC, representing Sir Paul during the six-day hearing last
month, had put to her that that was a fraudulent attempt to extract money
from her husband. Mr Justice Bennett said: "In my judgment it is
unnecessary to go so far as to characterise what the wife attempted as
fraudulent. However, it is not an episode that does her any credit
whatsoever.
"Either she knew or must have known that there were no loans on Thames
Reach, yet she tried to suggest that there were and thereby obtain monies by
underhand means. Her attempts when cross-examined to suggest that she may
have got in a muddle and confused this property with others, to my mind, had
a hollow ring.
"In the light of the husband’s generosity towards her, as I have set out,
I find the wife’s behaviour distinctly distasteful. In any event, as Mr
Mostyn rightly submitted, it damages her overall credibility."
The judgment also examined Ms Mills's earning capacity, which she told the
court was "zero" - blaming that on Sir Paul's attitude during the
marriage. Since the couple's separation in 2006, Ms Mills said that she had
been vilified to such an extent that she can no longer get work.
Mr Justice Bennett said: "I accept that since April 2006 the wife has had
a bad press. She is entitled to feel that she has been ridiculed, even
vilified. To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive
and volatile character."
Some of Heather Mills’s requests
Properties: Seven, including one in Beverley Hills and £8 million -
£12.5 million to buy a new house in London
Housekeepers for all seven: £645,000 p.a.
Holidays: £499,000 p.a. (including £185,000 for private jets and
helicopter flights)
Clothes: £125,000 p.a.
Equestrian activities: £39,000 p.a. (she no longer rides)
Wine: £39,000 p.a. (she does not drink alcohol)
Driver: £43,000 p.a
Fiona Shackleton to me, is the eptitome of success and power. Shes a strong lady who has become a figurehead in her industry, she is what every woman should strive to be like. I can imagine that even in court, when the water was thrown, she merely glanced at Mills, not even bothering to hit back with a retort because what Mills did was a sign of a woman bettered by another, she felt useless and felt that trying to belittle Ms Shackleton would perhaps get her on an even keel..Not a chance Heather, Fiona Shackleton has battled her way through a notoriously sexist industry, she is a career woman at the peak of her performance, not even after a thousand dousings could Mills ever hope to be half the woman that Fiona Shackleton is
Helena Carpenter, Crewe, Cheshire
The question is why the learned Judge gave her, not their child, anything?
Charlie, Hod Hasharon, Israel
Did anyone notice a resemblance to Linda after the soaking?
Dee Hobbs, Matcham, Australia
Fiona, will you marry me? Oh, you can draw up the pre-nup.
V Tan , London,
Lets have the final word from Mrs Shackleton:I swear under oath that from now on I will look 20 years younger.!
Patricia, London, London
Why do all the people posting to tell everyone how they really don't care bother reading the article, let alone commenting? If I'm not remotely interested in the subject of an article, I don't read, let alone comment on it - it's quite easy really.
Agreed with Sunny, I'd think it's worth every penny to Paul McCartney to get shot of the female Walter Mitty for good. After this, he probably won't be going down on one knee for a while - though I can't say the same for her.
Ruth , Glasgow, Scotland
Ms. Shackleton lost 20 years off her looks with her soaking. A consultant would have charged her hundreds of pounds to get the same effect. And to think, she can still sue for damages!
If Heather did this to Ms. Shackleton, can you imagine the havoc she wrought on Sir Paul?
D Swanson, Houston TX, USA
There will be many people who would love to pour water over their grasping lawyers heads but because Heather dares to say the obvious about them, she still gets lambasted.
For a gal with a disability and the terrible vilification she has endured, give her some kindness.
Certain newspapers who took important news matters off the front page to trawl over and issue spiteful stories belong in the gutter.
In France this character assasination with no let up would be banned.
Barbara , Northumberland, UK
Hear, hear! She looks hot as!
Camilla, Sydney,
At the end of the day this demonstrates what a sad society we live in and what a sorry situation their child will be brought up in. No amount of money in the world can make up for the media scrutiny that will surround them, especially if Ms Mills decides needs to make a bit more money in the future.
If I were Ms Mills I would rather have my sanity back than £24.3 million.
JC, Surrey, UK
It's funny that people read this article and then complain the subject matter is 'pathetic'! Yes, there are all sorts of more important issues, but these get reported as well. Shall we deny ourselves any other interests until such serious matters have been sorted out? For what it's worth, I love Fiona's new look. Takes ten years off her. Now, back to worrying about climate change and the credit crunch ....
Angus , London,
Maybe she just needed a good wash!!!
Daniella, hammersmith, uk
Pathetic
With rumours of a credit crunch and people worried about their morgages not to mention the millions of homeless and poor and starving around the world
Gareth Williams, Powys,
100 years from now Macca will still be a name remembered and admired.
His and the Beatles' music will still be played.
Heather - who???
Gerald B., Aarhus , Denmark
I was wondering what man would be stupid enough to form a relationship with HM in the future? Of course it's obvious! A nice, good looking, sexy 30 something. A couple of years or so sharing a warm, caring, loving life with such a wonderful human being as Heather before going after a chunk of her £24m. Should be easy to make a case after her track record. Now that would be justice.
Geoff Riley, Sewards End, Essex
I do not feel sorry for Mr. McCartney. Not a teeny bit sorry. Because it was all self-inflicted. He wanted a feisty, showy woman from another generation for a wife, therefore he married one. He proudly paraded her around in public. He could have married a demure unaspiring lady from his own generation though I suspect he finds that type of woman very appealing. It was quite obvious from the beginning that a marriage, considering the circumstances, might become a difficult matter for both parties involved. Mr. McCartney was an experienced man over 60 when he decided to marry Ms Mills, not a naive 18 year old boy. It is highly unfair to put all the blame for the marriage breakdown on his ex-wife. As for the divorce settlement I do not think Ms Mills has received too much money. Considering her ex-husband s immense fortune she should have received more.
Asta, Hamburg, Germany
Why isn't Fiona sueing Heather Mills for common assault? Or at least pushing for contempt of court?
Matthew Archer, Norfolk,
With all of her expenses, Heather better be careful, or she may have to resort to cavier helper. The whole scenario is totally unreal.
Barbara Begley
Mill Valley, California
Barbara Begley, Mill Valley, California, USA
Macca has been more than generous.
A more fitting judgement would have been a suburban semi somewhere and about 12k a year to live on. Then Ms. Mills might have had a chance to learn about real life and how to get on with the neighbours.
Peter Lloyd, BLACKER HILL, South Yorkshire
Having waded through the 58 page document that is the Judgment, I wondered at some of the 'evidence' put forward in court. Having read what details have been made public, I also think that the Inland Revenue may be taking a professional interest in her affairs sooner rather than later.
Mister Jones, Nanaimo, Canada
To be a famous lawyer and be assaulted by water in court!. Must be worth £24m at least in damages --- Go for it Fiona
Geoff, london,
Who cares? There are far more serious things going on in the world. Some countries could live for several years on the ex Mrs McCartney's settlement. Rather than worrying about what she gives to charity, both parties should feel quite sick.......
Mary, France,
What else would you expect from a JUDGE? He is simply using his power to slang off a courageous young woman who refused to pay the extortionate lawyers fees. She knew she was right but her mistake was thinking that she could get justice. These people look after themselves.
Mark my words, Heather has been unjustly maligned simply because she took an Icon of music to court. The media, confused with their hero worship of Paul, decided that he was "Holier than Though" and elevated him to a God Like status where he could do no wrong and that HEather was an incarnation of all the witches of hell. The deliberate public flogging of Heathers virtues was a wicked thing to do.
Incidentally, I knew Paul and the others as a young man in Liverpool, and I will only say that although he and the others wrote good music, all is not as it seems to most.
Dave C., Wallasey, UK
The wetlook works. She looks 10 years younger.
Delighted this ruse has backfired and media attention is focussed on hair rather than the ex Mrs M.
Tatiana Cliterscue, Johannesburg,
I can only imagine how glad Sir Paul will be to get this woman out of his life, except for their daughter. Given McCartney's track record in raising children, he should have been given primary custody. It would be a much healthier upbringing.
Wintson Smith, Orlando, FL, USA
I think that she was a nobody when she met him, and she's still a nobody. Fact is, she can be a damn comfortable nobody with that settlement. Dear Sir Paul: note to self, (Never re-marry. If you do , perhaps a pre-nup) You're still the best!! No one can take that away. My divorce left me with a motorcycle, 3 washcloths and a vacuum cleaner, but I didn't have any carpet!
the long and winding road..........
Steve, Largo, USA/Florida
I feel sorry for Beatrice, I think she would be better off being brought up by her father
A Hunt, London, UK
Doesn't Fiona Shackleton look ten times better after jug of water has been poured over her. Maybe she should hire HM as her stylist!
Mark Brinkley, Cambridge, UK
I see that Ms Mills is concerned that her daughter will travel B Class. Perhaps not a bad thing, she may get a better perspective than that which her mother might impart.
Ms Mills of course will be travelling "no class".
Steve Melville, Sydney, Australia
As I read this article, I just started laughing and couldn't stop, uncontrollably. She is definitely a great catch as women go. I never did like the beetles much, but feel sorry for this poor little beetle boy. The part with the pitcher of water on the defense laywer was classic. They should have televised it.
Jeff Dunham, Yacol, WA USA
As she is obviously now nothing more than a mere charity case herself, let us see how much of her "donated" wealth she will give to others in more need. After all if it weren't for Sir Paul's money why else would a charity wish to associate itself with someone of such dubious charater?
Howard , Seattle, USA
I should imagine its worth every penny to get rid of her :-)
Sunny, Sheffield,
Could care less........
Edie Egan, Middletown N. Y., USA
I well remember a very short - but very revealing- interview with Heather just before their marriage when she was responding to the 'gold-digger' accusation. 'If I wanted a really rich man, I'd have gone for an oil sheik" she said - stupidly trying to dismiss Pauls wealth! That simple comment gave me grave doubts about her agenda with Paul. Whereas now, when its more (finacially) beneficial to her, she tries to maximize Paul's wealth. I am very glad that her quite obscene claim for £125m was roundly rejected by the judge, but am still amazed that she was awarded £24m. Mind you, if she gave half of it to her charities I'd certainly look at lot more favourably on her - but somehow I doubt whether she'll give that much away!
geoff dunn, Liverpool, UK
Am I alone in this.
I am the only one who has no sympahty for Miss Mills at all.
Stephen Jones, Kualar Lumpur, Malaysia
Why does Ms Mills always say my daughter rather than our daughter, they have joint custody of her. She is just trying to get public sympathy. I am sure Beatrice will want for nothing, Paul will always be there for as he was for his other children. Ms Mills is d ing more harm to Beatrice in her public statements than Paul is.
Chris, Marshall, Va
Sir Paul McCartney does not to say anything about his marriage to Heather Mills. She has said it all in her behaviour. He and his family must be heaving a huge sigh of relief that finally she is out of their lives.
Christina, Windsor, UK
this unsavoury person gives women a bad name.
stephanie, norwich, norfolk
With £24m, you can buy pretty much everything you want. Except class.
tony airey, Manchester, UK
I think she has done the cause of honest women seeking to achieve a settlement much damage. Her obvious money grabbing calculated approach to the relationship should cause men to think very carefully before committing to a marriage.
She did not contribute in any way to the family fortune and the settlement is more than generous. I hope her daughter has not inherited her mothers mouth and poor character.
ian harvey, brighton,
she soulde`t of got that much money
bob, uk, slough
I haven't enjoyed a news item as much as this since Jeffrey Archer got sent to prison for purgery. She's given the court, and everyone else, so much entertainment, she even dressed like a jester. She's pure class [sic].
Alex Morgan, Kingston upon Thames, UK
So that was a good result given her original stated aims? ]
Puts me in mind of the saying "he (or she) who acts for themselves has a fool for a client."
Denise, Colchester,
For Ms Mills to have been awarded as much as 24.3 pence (without costs) seems most unreasonable.
Douglas, London, England
To be fair, he would have had it in for Heather Mills even if she was a saint. He needs to protect his lawyer mates and try to convince the public that the only way to win a divorce case is to pay through the nose.
John Lilburne, London,
The throwing of the water was rather like Heather's mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest of them all? Why Paul's lawyer of course, as she was instantly transformed into a beautiful lady looking 15 years younger. Brilliant, even that vicious act back fired with superb poetic justice, who wrote the script.
David, Malmesbury, UK
I trust the Inland Revenue will now commence a full investigation of Heather Mills, due to the blatant inconsistencies given in her evidence when claiming questionable possession of assets, and the repeated lack of documentary evidence throughout this case to support her tax and donation claims.
She must be investigated.
Tom Franklin, London, UK
Go on then Heather, prove your "charity" cause: give £24m away.
HG, London, UK
I think a few people said that she was a bit of a fantasist. Perhaps she did believe that she had won yesterday?
Austin Tassletine, South West, UK
Would you give up around 5% of your wealth to be rid of Heather Mills?
"Ohhh Yessss!!"
(With apologies to Chuchill the insurance dog.)
C Stanley, Cheltenham,
Heather Mills, a gold-digging fantasist?
Who could ever have imagined that?
Glenn, Wales,
I just read most of the full 58 page judgement... I recommend that you do too - it's fascinating...
Finally; one judge that appears to have got it right... It's a shame he can't teach our criminal judges what justice actually means...
Garry, London,
She should have received nothing in this settlement, she didn't contribute anything to Paul's McCartney's career.
I thing a couple of seal pelt jackets and a seal flipper sandwich would have been suffice.
J. Walsh, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
Put very simply, it's all about dignity, isn't it! He has it. She has not. One can only imagine, given her recent behaviour, what a complete nightmare she must have been to live with, and would be should any other man be foolish enough to allow her to get close to him. Thank all the gods that this blistering judgment will hang over her for the rest of her wretched, puffed-up, self-obsessed life.
Albert Bankment, Alton, UK
Why was she not charged with contempt of court for the water throwing?
Why is she not being investigated for fraud, given the possibly fraudulent transactions declared in the judgment?
Why is she not being investigated for tax evasion given the lack of documentary evidence to support her fictional tax returns?
Helen E., London, UK
Now, with any luck, Ms. Mills will ride off into the sunset - poncho bags stuffed with - cash and we shall see and hear no more of her.
Nigel, Grimsby, Ontario
£35,000 a year for a child is more than the every day person earns a year to support a family, Miss Mills should be grateful that their daughter will have a an exceptionallly fruitful up bringing. and let us not forget, money is not everything and maybe all their daughter needs is their love.
Tracey Hughes, Birmingham,
I am no fan of Mr McCartney, but the judgement that she should get anything beggars belief, since he made his wealth plying his trade prior to her apperance on the scene, what has she specifically contributed to the joint coffers that would possible justify a whopping £24M other than child maintainence, which could have dealth with as a direct provision. At £5M a year for a self seeking publicist, I'm sure there's a cheaper way of gratifying oneself ! no matter how wealthy, or was it just a lack of imagination.
Andrew Wakeling, London, uk
Will the Inland Revenue now be after Ms Mills for the lack of Tax Returns sent in?
Debbie Nyman, London, England
At least she tried to clean up the legal system, lake Windermere would just about suffice ! Out of the box - if one party wishes to defend themself, the other should too, lawyers would love that !
Wills, Soton, UK
Is "inaccurate and less than candid" not the same as "purgery"?
julian, shrewsbury, uk
Don't worry its only money ,she will never be happy
Haydn, London,
Yes, it was an assault and should not have been permitted by the court... but having seen Ms Shackelton's before and after, I can't help but agree with writer Nicola Copping. Fiona looked absolutely vibrant after the dowsing. I may give it a try myself.
Elisha Moor, London, England
Dear Judge, although i was not there, i could have told you same! Frankly, the lady protests too much and in the most irritating of ways. Listening to her, it is clear she withholds information that is disfavourable to herself. As i say, i am not surprised!
Annie, Cambridge, UK
Does anyone really give one iota.
PLEASE SPARE US!!!!!!!!!!
Tony, Midlothian, Scotland
If this is the case, then why was she given such a large amount by any standards?
Hamad Lone, London, England
Why has Miss Mills not been charged with the assault that took place in a court yesterday ?
I fancy if she was not a celeb she would have been hauled off to the cells.
B Wilson, Edinburgh,