McCartney-Mills divorce ruling
Some salacious details emerged in the McCartney-Mills divorce case
Also In The News
|
Parlophone, March 24th . |  |
Tuesday, 18, Mar 2008 03:07
As the full judgment in the McCartney Mills divorce case is published, we take an in-depth look at the highlights of Mr Justice Bennett's ruling.
While he's hardly likely to be unbiased, Nicholas Mostyn QC, representing Sir Paul McCartney, had argued that any financial award to Heather Mills resulting from the divorce case should be "reduced to reflect her post-separation misconduct" - an argument that few who had seen the former model's infamous GMTV ramblings could argue with.
Mills claimed the former Beatle caused her to lose substantial earnings during their marriage through his "constriction" of her career and sought compensation not just for the stagnation of her career but "an award commensurate with being the wife of, and the mother of the child of, an icon".
Unfortunately, Mr Justice Bennett did not look on her case especially kindly. While he saw Sir Paul as a "consistent, accurate and honest" witness, Mills' testimony was not viewed in the same light.
"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," the judge ruled. "Overall she was a less than impressive witness."
Her claim that she was "wealthy and independent" by the time she met her husband in 1999 was also severely undermined. A lack of documentary evidence of her earnings, drastically misjudging value of London property and claiming to have owned Brighton property in 1999 which she in fact did not buy until March 2000 must surely have damaged her case.
The judge also found inconsistencies between her alleged earnings and the amount she said was "sent directly to charity".
He also said she "must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as her husband".
And in one of the damning facets of the ruling, he writes: "I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-belief."
For example, she thought the property known as 'Heather House' on Heather Road in Beverley Hills, Los Angeles, was hers. However, Sir Paul never said that to her and as their house in Cavendish Avenue, New York was named 'Cavendish', calling the LA property 'Heather House' did not reflect ownership in any way.
Mills also claims her income dwindled during the marriage as she supported McCartney "and his children emotionally". She alleges he advised her against "99 per cent" of "lucrative business opportunities" offered to her and said she would be a "bad mother" if she worked on the Larry King show in the US.
She also says Sir Paul prevented her taking an offer from Marks & Spencer to front a bra campaign for £1m in April 2001. Not only is there no evidence that the contract was that valuable, the couple had already decided this style of modelling was inappropriate for her as they were in a relationship.
Mr Justice Bennett admits that the idea of Mills taking on more hosting stints on Larry King was 'floated' but never seriously discussed, and while she was offered speaking assignments and a job with McDonald's, these projects stalled due to her "personal inability to be as accessible as was necessary".
While Mills claimed Sir Paul had a negative impact on her career, the judge ruled that the singer "encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities".
The ruling makes reference to a "telling comment" in which Sir Paul said his ex-wife "liked to be the centre of attention and. enjoyed wielding a camera" and also rubbished any claims on her part that she was ever Sir Paul's business partner.
Though it is believed Sir Paul had offered £15.3 million, a "lot less" than the final settlement, the judge also said Mills had grossly overestimated the value of her ex-husband's fortune.
"I reject the wife's case that he is worth £800m," he writes. "There is absolutely no evidence at all to support that figure or any figure anywhere near it."
While the pair indeed travelled the world during their four-year marriage, flying first-class and staying in luxury hotels, their home, especially in England, was "comparatively simple".
Furthermore, Mr Justice Bennett says Mills did not moderate her spending after the split and unreasonably expected her lifestyle to be maintained.
He also said he agrees with Sir Paul's representatives' contention that Mills wanted to "enhance" her lifestyle after the separation and showed a further contradiction in her defence by pointing to her claims to have been offered no work but also her remarks that she turned down "huge amounts of work" due to desire to keep daughter Beatrice near her father.
And in a concluding remark that most will agree with, the judge writes that her media appearances in November led to "self-inflicted", as opposed to the unreasonable paparazzi hounding of which she had complained.