Total court pwnage.

The judgement in the Paul McCartney/Heather Mills court case has been released to the public, and it’s a doozy.  Along with laying out the extent of Macca’s wealth, it shows just how Heather attempted to milk Sir Paul for all he’s worth.  But the court had one word for her:  FAIL.

You can read the entire 58-page judgement here, but I’ll give you some of the highlights:

By the time of the parties’ first meeting in May of 1999 the wife says that she was wealthy and independent with, as she told me in evidence, properties and cash totalling between £2m and £3m.

She earned her living as a TV presenter, a model and public speaker. She began to cohabit with the husband from March 2000 which led seamlessly into marriage and thus the relationship lasted 6 years. This is denied by the husband.

The wife says that the husband’s attitude towards her career was one of constriction such that the opportunities for the development of her career fell away during their relationship.

He dictated what she could or could not do. She thus seeks compensation for the loss of her career opportunity in that during their cohabitation and subsequent marriage she forewent a lucrative and successful career. She seeks an award commensurate with being the wife of, and the mother of the child of, an icon.

The wife is a strong willed and determined personality. She has shown great fortitude in the face of, and overcoming, her disability. I refer to the loss of her left leg below the knee. As I shall show she is a kindly person and is devoted to her charitable causes. She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination.

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

But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife’s evidence. 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.

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. She is passionate about them, particularly those that involve working for, and with, amputees. The DVDs shown to me in court amply bear that out.

I do not doubt that she modelled successfully and was a public speaker. But the investigation in this case of her assets and earnings as at 1999 when the parties met do not bear out her case.

The wife’s riposte is that much of her earnings, which are not included in the tax returns, were sent direct to charities of her nomination. In her evidence she told me that as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings went direct to charities. However, the wife had to accept in her cross-examination that there was no documentary evidence, for example letters from the relevant charities, that her fees were sent direct to charities. [emphasis mine]

In her Answers to a Questionnaire of 6 February 2007 the wife, having been asked to set out in a schedule the income earned by her and sent direct to charities for the years 1997 and 2000 inclusive, replied that she did not have the records requested to enable her to complete a schedule. Furthermore, her assertion that she gave away to charity 80% to 90% of her earned income is inconsistent with having £2m-£3m in the bank in 1999.  [emphasis mine] 

I find that the wife’s case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated. The assertion that she was a wealthy person in 1999 is, of course, the first step in her overall case that her career, which in 1999 she says was one producing rich financial rewards, was thereafter blighted by the husband during their relationship. It is therefore connected to the issue of “compensation”.

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.

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.

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. I was no longer able to support my standard of living as I had substantially reduced my workload in order to spend time with Paul and to support him and his children emotionally.

“My ability to earn the same level of income I had been earning diminished once my relationship with Paul became serious.

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 of me. When I was asked to design clothes, create a food line, write books, make a video, write music or do photography, Paul would almost always state something like “Oh no you can’t do that, Stella does that or Mary does that or Heather (his adopted daughter) used to do that or Linda did that.” even though I had been involved with fashion and modelling for years.

“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. For example he would not allow me to work on the Larry King show. He would tell me “we won’t be living there and you would be a bad mother if you worked.” Therefore, Paul made it impossible for me to pursue a career in the U.S. Shortly after telling me I would be a “bad mother” if I worked, Paul booked a 3 month US tour dragging Beatrice and me around America.

“If we had been able to base ourselves in one place I would have been able to accept the hosting of some of the Larry King shows or to do something to further my career.

“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.”

The wife complains that in April 2001 or thereabouts she was offered a contract by Marks and Spencers to model bras over a 12 month period for £1m but that the husband would not allow her to undertake to do it. Her evidence was that he forbade her.

The only document produced by the wife in connection with this offer is an e-mail from Jaime Brent, a creative director from Beckenham.

There is nothing in it about any remuneration. The husband’s evidence was that even if such a contract for that sum was in the offing (which he doubted), nevertheless he and the wife discussed it and decided together that as they were in a relationship it was not appropriate for her to be seen modelling bras.

She agreed. He also told me that if she had insisted he would not have opposed her. In my judgment the husband’s evidence is much more likely to be true.

[...] I accept the husband’s evidence that in April 2004 he found a big name, Paul Newman, for her to interview on the Larry King Show as guest presenter.

At paragraph 52 of her affidavit of 30 January 2008 the wife says that Larry King intended her to host more shows but the husband “put a stop to my dream of hosting the biggest TV show in the world and what would have been a huge and lucrative career move for me”. The wife says that the husband allowed her to do one show but no more as otherwise she would be a “bad” mother.

She told me in evidence that in April 2004 she had been offered a verbal contract to guest present the shows 2 or 3 days per week.

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.

The wife told him she had been offered a more permanent job co-hosting the Larry King Show. The husband was sceptical because the wife had received bad reviews for her interview of Paul Newman.

However he agreed to go to the US for 3 months to see how things went. He says he believed he owed it to the wife as she had accompanied him on his last US tour.

But they were both of the same mind that they, for Beatrice’s sake, did not wish to relocate to Los Angeles. Thereafter the wife did not mention the subject again.

The wife in her cross-examination did not accept this account.

I am prepared to assume in the wife’s favour that Larry King did float the idea of the wife doing further interviews on his show.

But I doubt it got any further than that. I do not accept the wife’s evidence that she was actually offered a contract.

The idea was discussed between the wife and the husband. Beatrice was then about 6 months old.

This was the wife’s first and only child. Her birth must have brought about a change in the outlook of the wife and husband, for the welfare of Beatrice to both of them was, and still is, of the very greatest importance.

I think the husband was, very understandably, reluctant about what would have been a relocation to Los Angeles and the likelihood is that he proposed a sort of temporary solution.

Thereafter the wife, having no doubt considered it all carefully with Beatrice’s welfare in mind, dropped the subject.

In 2005, at a time when the marriage may have been faltering, the wife took part in a mini tour in the USA of public speaking with Smart Talk Women’s Lecture Series.

Mr Benia, the owner or controlling influence in that organisation, speaks in his statement of 24 November 2006 (which was admitted into evidence on behalf of the wife unchallenged) of the wife’s tour being an “outstanding success”.

However Smart Talk was unable to offer the wife more dates for the 2006 season as Mr Benia found that the wife “was unable to commit in advance to future Smart Talk dates”.

Mr Benia says that the wife lost a lot of business not just with his, but other, organisations, basically because she was not accessible. He could not get a commitment from the wife for dates nor speedy responses he needed.

The wife blames the husband for her failure to commit. He was restrictive and discouraged her. The husband’s evidence is that the wife’s unreliability was not caused by him.

He was unable to explain why the wife did not commit herself when offered dates by Mr Benia. The husband, in my judgment, gave compelling evidence that no-one tells the wife what to do. [emphasis mine]

This accords with his written evidence that the wife is very strong willed. Indeed watching the wife give evidence and present her case she came across to me as strong willed and very determined. I have no doubt that had the wife really wanted to contract for dates through Mr Benia she would have done it and the husband would not have stood in her way.

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.

[Paul] 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. He denied he had lost his confidence. Her case that in some way she single-handedly saved him was exaggerated.

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.

He agreed she attended many of his concerts because the wife enjoyed being there and loved him.

Another DVD was shown in which the wife can be seen photographing the husband and his team on their private plane. She asserted that this was part of her work for the husband. The husband, I thought, in a telling comment, said that the wife liked to be the centre of attention and she enjoyed wielding a camera. He gave her full credit for the idea of the acrylic finger nail [Paul had worn his real nail down to the quick which made it difficult to play] which, he told me, was a brilliant idea.

I reject her evidence that she, vis-à-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.

In her final submissions the wife described her contribution as “exceptional”. I reject her case. I am afraid I have to say her case on this issue is devoid of reality. The husband’s evidence is far more persuasive.

As he has always accepted, he can pay any sum which the court considers appropriate as for financial provision for the wife. Nevertheless I find that the husband’s total wealth amounts to approximately £400m.

I reject the wife’s case that he is worth £800m. There is absolutely no evidence at all to support that figure or any figure anywhere near it.

The wife’s total expenditure in the 15 month period was £3,715,683. If legal and forensic accountancy fees of £1,003,313 and £675,000 of property refurbishment are stripped out then the wife has spent in the 15 months period £2,037,376 on herself. Then if £775,000 is deducted from that, it is submitted that the wife has overspent by £1,262,376 in that period. [In other words, she overspent in a time frame shortly after the divorce to make it look like she needed more money than she actually needed]

In my judgment the wife’s attitude in her Form E, her open offers, her oral and written evidence, and her submissions is that she is entitled for the indefinite future, if not for the whole of her life, to live at the same “rate” as the husband and to be kept in the style to which she perceives she was accustomed during the marriage.

Although she strongly denied it her case boils down to the syndrome of “me, too” or “if he has it, I want it too”. I shall say more about this when I consider what are the wife’s needs.

It must have been absolutely plain to the wife after separation that it was wholly unrealistic to expect to go on living at the rate at which she perceived she was living.

For 10 months of the near 4 year marriage the husband was touring. This entailed first class international travel, first class hotels, and internal private flights. The husband and wife went on expensive and sometimes exotic holidays. They lived well.

They often flew by private jet and /or helicopter. They always flew first class if flying with a commercial airline. The wife had an allowance of £360,000 p.a. The husband paid all the major bills.

But that said, their lifestyle in their homes, particularly in England, was comparatively simple. The Cabin was a very modest property. They largely stayed in and did not eat out. They enjoyed riding and yoga.

There was no round the clock security. The security in Sussex was provided by the farm workers. There was no live-in staff. The parties did not spend their time on yachts or, in the memorable phrase of the celebrated economist, Prof. J.K.Galbraith, on “conspicuous consumption”.

They spent time in New York and at 11, Pintail, a modest holiday home. They never visited the Scottish properties.

I am satisfied that the wife has expected, and unreasonably, that such a lifestyle would not only continue but was her entitlement.

She did not moderate her spending after separation. I entirely accept that when a marriage breaks down, the maelstrom of a broken relationship may well envelop both spouses and make it very difficult for them to re-order their lives, particularly financial.

But I have no doubt that in the wife’s mindset, there was an element that she was going to spend (in the 15 month period) in order thereby to hope to prove that a budget in excess of £3m p.a. put forward in her Form E in September 2006 was justifiable. [Again, she overspent to make it look like she needed more money to live on than she actually needed]

The personal expenditure included £349,862 allegedly paid on security.

No invoices were ever produced, despite repeated request of the wife during the final hearing and despite promises by her to bring them. The wife explained in her cross-examination that she was paying for her security in cash “so Paul can’t find out who they are”. However she said that she would allow me to see the invoices.

She told me that she was afraid that if the husband saw the invoices he would leak details of the security arrangements for her and Beatrice. Nevertheless she told me she would produce the invoices to me.

She never did. Thus, although she has annotated her bank statements identifying the items which she says are payments for security, not one single invoice or receipt has been produced to verify those payments.

I accept that the wife has spent sums on security but I am not satisfied that she has in fact spent nearly £350,000 in security in the 15 months period.

I consider her reason for her unwillingness for the husband to see any invoices is a smokescreen to seek to try and explain away her failure to produce them. I reject completely the suggestion that the husband would in some way jeopardise the security of the wife and Beatrice.

Her case is that there should not be such a disparity between her lifestyle and that of the husband such as could or might impact upon Beatrice.

She seeks to contrast her, reasonable she would say, demands with the large and diverse property holdings of the husband. She is deeply involved in charitable work and needs an office from which to conduct her charitable, as well as business, activities.

In my judgment, her case overlooks the fact that all of the husband’s properties were acquired before their marriage, in some cases long before, with the exception of “Heather House”.

If the wife was being truthful in her evidence to the Senior District Judge in June 2007 (which I assume she was) – see paragraph 192 below - she will not be working in Los Angeles (or indeed the USA) and thus has no need of a home there. So far as an office is concerned, there is plenty of room for one in the spacious property at Pean’s Wood. [A 14-acre estate]

In my judgment, it is important for the wife that she is assisted to recover and thereafter develop her earning capacity.

I doubt that that will happen solely from Pean’s Wood. It is much more likely to happen if the wife has a property in London.

But, in my judgment, it is reasonable for that to be in the nature of a spacious flat with a minimum of 3 bedrooms.

I have seen agents’ particulars of properties put forward by the husband for properties of £2m or less. The wife did not like them because they are not on a par with Cavendish.

I agree they are not. But a flat costing £2.5m inclusive of stamp duty and legal fees and furnishing seems to me to be reasonable. If, of course, the wife wishes to purchase something more expensive then she can sell Angel’s Rest which would raise another £2m.

The wife’s case is that her earning capacity is now zero. The wife, as I have said, blames the husband for his attitude towards her working during the marriage. That I have found to be a false case.

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. 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. [emphasis mine] Nevertheless the fact is that at present she is at a disadvantage.

The wife would say she is at a severe disadvantage. I think she overplays her hand. First, she was able to secure in the spring of 2007 a valuable contract, Dancing with the Stars, from which she received £110,000 for 2 months work. Second, in June 2007 she gave the following evidence to the Senior District Judge when being cross examined by Mr Peter Jackson QC for the husband.

“Q: Let me take it then that you are not going to be thinking of moving to Slovenia with Beatrice? A: I am not thinking of moving anywhere and there are 20 statements live on TV shows to promote Dancing with the Stars - - - Q: It will help us - - - A: - - saying I will never move abroad, I will never live abroad, because I want to keep my daughter near her father.

I am renowned for saying that, and to suggest anything else is just speculation on what Paul or the press have put together. Live, I have been asked it a million times and I have said I will never move abroad. I want Beatrice to be near her father - - - -

Q: So we can ignore any thought that you might want to take Beatrice to Los Angeles or any other part of the United States or anywhere - - -

A: 100%. 100%. I have turned down huge amounts of work. This Dancing with the Stars was a one-off short thing that Judge Waller knew everything about in the last case and is not a tour, is not anything. It had cleared my name- - -”

Her evidence there that she had turned down huge amounts of work is quite inconsistent with her assertion that her earning capacity is zero.

Third, during the hearing before me the wife was asked and agreed to produce a schedule of all offers of work from the US since separation. She produced no schedule or list.

However, she did produce some documents which however did not lead me really anywhere. She produced her contract in relation to Dancing with the Stars. She donated £50,000 of her receipts to VIVA. She produced a document from 44 Blue Productions of the William Morris Agency re possible project opportunities. She also produced a letter of 2 November 2006 from Ed Hardy of Nervous Tattoo of an unsigned contract to model for a period of 10 months at a monthly fee of US $10,000. The evidence is unclear whether she ever in fact contracted and worked for Ed Hardy.

I have no doubt that, despite the very adverse publicity in the last 2 years or a little under, the wife does have an earning capacity. She has earned her living since the age of 17.

I have found that her association with the husband advanced, not stultified, her career. If in the future she is circumspect about engaging with the media and/or adopts an emollient and less confrontational attitude to it, I think that the negative interest shown towards her will indeed subside. [emphasis mine]

She claims for seven fully staffed properties with full-time housekeepers in the annual sum of £645,000. She claims holiday expenditure of £499,000 p.a. (including private and helicopter flights of £185,000), £125,000 p.a. for her clothes, £30,000 p.a. for equestrian activities (she no longer rides), £39,000 p.a. for wine (she does not drink alcohol), £43,000 p.a. for a driver, £20,000 p.a. for a carer, and professional fees of £190,000 p.a. All these items Mr Mostyn submits are theoretically recognised heads of expenditure but “extraordinarily exaggerated”.

He, next, submits that the following items are not only hugely exaggerated but also impermissible in principle. They are £542,000 p.a. for security, £627,000 p.a. for charitable donations, £73,000 p.a. for the cost of business staff and £39,000 p.a. for helicopter hospital flights.

Mr Mostyn submits that the wife seeks not merely to replicate the marital standard of living for life but also to enhance it. He submits that in a short marriage case it is legitimate to look at the claimant’s needs more conservatively than in a long marriage, because the standard of living which has a bearing on the assessment of need will have been enjoyed for a shorter period. After a marriage lasting just under 4 years Mr Mostyn submits that it is unreasonable for the wife to assert that the marital standard of living should be reproduced for her lifetime. Mr Mostyn draws comfort from a similar observation by Coleridge J in the directions hearing on 20 December 2007.

The wife, as I understand her case, says that far from replicating the marital standard of living, she is taking a reduction. The wife would contrast her budget with the very high standard of living they enjoyed during the marriage. As the wife states in her final submissions:

“I have based my claim on reasonable needs that I was accustomed to, before and during the marriage.”

The wife professes extreme concern for the safety and well-being of herself and Beatrice.

She wants round the clock security including bodyguards for herself and Beatrice. She showed me a DVD of at least one paparazzi following her car in Brighton.

It is correct that in December 2006 death threats were made against her but there is no evidence that there have been any such threats since. The wife told me in evidence that she has received abuse and nasty messages on her website. She says she is concerned by “crazy fans”. She told me she wants security “until she is an old lady”.

However her evidence on this contentious issue is at variance with the evidence she put before the Senior District Judge in March 2007. On 6 March in her evidence to the Senior District Judge she said:

“Our life in Brighton is really beginning to shape in Brighton …. I am so much happier now with life since the tabloid press have slowly begun to lay off me.

“Yes, there are a few stories here and there; and yes, a few paparazzi still follow me around, but I expect this to pass and I am feeling very positive about our future”

Of course, a year has passed since then. She unwisely gave interviews in October and November 2007 which may have produced intrusion into her life by the media. But that was very largely self-inflicted. [emphasis mine]

At paragraph 16 and 17 of his affidavit of 22 February 2007 (sworn for the maintenance pending suit hearing) [Paul] said:

“Before Heather and I were married I had a fairly limited and low key security presence (unless I was on tour, which creates a very different set of circumstances). There were never any bodyguards at Peasmarsh.

The general farm employees kept a look-out for anything suspicious. There was virtually no security at Cavendish Avenue.

At the office complex in New York there would be one guard on the door given the location of the office in mid-town Manhattan.

There was an off duty police officer who provided night cover when I was at Long island, and on trips to and from the airport.

There was no permanent close protection during this period unless I was on tour or attending high profile events. This was how I had lived with my first wife and our four children.

There were no real changes after Heather and I married until Beatrice was born.

However Heather then began demanding, increasingly stridently, far more “security” to protect her from what she viewed as Press intrusion.

She did not suggest that she needed security for her or Beatrice’s personal safety. Rather her aim was to erect a barrier between her and the photographers. Accordingly, whilst there was no security at the Cabin over and above the presence of farm hands, security was increased when we were at Cavendish Avenue, and was increased when we went to my American properties. I must stress that I believe there was no need for this increase other than Heather’s insistence. Indeed, I have reverted to my former pattern of security in recent months.”

At paragraphs 20 and 21 he said:

“Since the summer, I have, to my great relief been able to revert to the security arrangements which were in force for most of my “celebrity” life before late 2003, when Beatrice was born and when Heather began her campaign to increase security. I now only have semi-permanent security cover at my Peasmarsh Estate.

Basically the farm staff working on my land keep a look out for anything suspicious. There are no bodyguards.

The only person with me on a permanent basis is my PA, John Hammel who has been with me for thirty years. The court will be aware that Heather now maintains several members of staff including a driver and a personal trainer.

Mr Hammel is only with me during the day or when I am working in the evenings. I am alone at night (apart from when Beatrice is with me). Mr Hammel has no security background or training in protection skills and cannot therefore be classified as a bodyguard.

When I am at Cavendish Avenue I have no level of close protection, save for the electronic systems already in place. Obviously, when I go on tour, I have specifically assigned security. [Hmm...think of John; is this smart to advertise to the world?]

My real concern with Heather’s demands for bodyguards 24 hours a day is our daughter. Unless on tour, my older children had very little security.

They all attended local state schools. It is not healthy for a child to have security 24/7. It sets them apart from their peers and makes them an object of curiosity and, at times, ridicule. Such children live in gilded cages. I do not want this for Beatrice.

I am rarely photographed with Beatrice. She needs as normal an upbringing as possible, and surrounding her with round the clock security is not the way to achieve this.”

On the other hand she is obsessed with her portrayal in the media. [Paul] further explained that the more the security the greater the interest shown by the paparazzi who enjoy the chase.

In his oral evidence he expressed much the same views. He agreed that during the marriage there was a heightened level of security because that was what the wife wanted and he went along with it. There was no need for such a level now.

Charity expenditure at an annual rate of £627,000 includes airfares of £180,000 for commercial flights, £120,000 for helicopter flights, and £192,000 for private flights. I accept that the wife is very committed to charities and their causes but the degree of such proposed expenditure is, I am sorry to have to say, ridiculous.

However I do propose to allow in what I shall assess as her income needs (generously interpreted) a modest sum for carrying out her charitable activities and making donations to charity. If she wishes to make further donations over and above that sum then she can do that from her earnings.

Holidays are put into her budget at £499,000 which is made up of accommodation at £242,000, helicopter flights at £35,000, commercial flights at £72,000 and private flights at £150,000. I accept the wife’s evidence that she has always since the age of 25 flown first class and that when she and Beatrice fly they should go first class.

The husband accepted this in his evidence. But the figures given are much, much too high in every respect.

These items in her budget which I have touched upon above, illustrate generally speaking, how unreasonable (even generously interpreted) are the claimed needs of the wife.

In the absence of any sensible proposal by the wife as to her income needs I must do the best I can on the material I have.

If the wife feels aggrieved about what I propose she only has herself to blame. If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly over-eggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget.

I  shall, exceptionally, include a figure of £50,000 p.a. to enable the wife to carry out charitable activities and to make charitable donations. In my judgment this is warranted in the particular circumstances of this case. Whatever else may be said about the wife, her devotion to her charities is very impressive. Over many years, and in particular during the marriage, the wife was very generous in her charitable giving and did much work on behalf of her selected charities. She very much wants to continue along this path. The husband, too, was, and continues to be, generous to charities.

I do not think therefore that he can legitimately complain if the wife’s budget includes such a sum.

[Paul's capital and income needs] can be assessed in a sentence. He has more than enough assets and income to cater for his needs. I should add that the husband has an outstanding liability for legal costs in respect of these proceedings of about £200,000 (i.e. taking into account what he has already paid on account). He has discharged the fees of Ernst and Young directly.

Lastly, in respect of the matters set out in S.25 (2) I turn to conduct. On the first day of the hearing before me oral submissions were made as to the relevance of conduct. Having heard the wife and Mr Mostyn I ruled that neither party would be permitted to introduce allegations of either marital or post separation conduct. I refused to accede to Mr Mostyn’s fall back position. I told the parties I would give my reasons in my judgment; and this I now do.

Whew…I need a nap.  Think about all this next time you’re fighting about who left the cap off the toothpaste and how much to spend on groceries this week, and hire a marriage counselor.

Basically, Heather Mills lied, made things up, created situations out of nothing, exaggerated her own importance, and tried to use her daughter to milk even more money out of Sir Paul.  If she wanted more money, she would have done better to have kept her lawyers.  They would have made sure her t’s were crossed and her i’s were dotted, instead of all the contradictory statements she made.  It would have been lying (or at best stretching the truth), but she would have been closer to her goal of world domination than she is now.

Beatrice would probably be better off with her father.  Can you imagine what growing up with Heather must be like?

Two words for you, Sir Paul:  PRE NUP.  Older but wiser.

No wonder she didn’t want this leaked to the press!