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
