Heather Mills: FAIL
Â
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. Continued on the next page
