Given the bad blood flowing through such a high-profile domestic it was quite a restrained gesture, really. There could have been shouting or even fisticuffs.

But Heather Mills restricted herself to throwing a glass of water over the immaculately coiffed hair of Sir Paul McCartney’s lawyer before emerging from the High Court yesterday to profess herself profoundly satisfied with the result. The £24.3 million divorce award, that is, not the wrecking of a tidy legal hairdo.

Fiona Shackleton, solicitor for the former Beatle, walked from court looking a little damp but not unduly discomfited. She had, after all, just saved her client a shade over £100 million.

Ms Mills, the former model who tunnelled her way into a massive seam of gold, will receive just one fifth of the £125 million that she had claimed from Sir Paul. In an impassioned speech on the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice, Ms Mills insisted that she was “very, very happy with the decision”. Well, who wouldn’t be?

Yet she was not entirely at peace with the world, launching a direct personal attack on Ms Shackleton, saying that she had “handled this case in the worst manner you could imagine”. One warring cat could not have miaowed louder to another. According to Ms Mills, her husband’s solicitor had called her “many, many names before even meeting me when I was in a wheelchair”.

Sir Paul and his legal team, undoubtedly grateful for what they can only see as a victory snatched from the jaws of an ill-conceived four-year marriage, emerged at least 15 minutes after Ms Mills. They made no ranting speeches but the normally composed Ms Shackleton looked flushed. Top lawyers do not usually expect a showering in Her Majesty’s higher courts.

Ms Mills immediately announced that she would be back in court today to block publication of the full judgment “for the sake of my daughter” – although another factor may be that she comes in for criticism in it from the judge.

The sum awarded may have been a fraction of what Ms Mills had claimed, but it was in line with widespread predictions by family lawyers of what she could expect – and also close to what was reportedly on the table from Sir Paul at the start of negotiations last autumn.

Ms Mills, who dispensed with her lawyers, rejected any idea that she could have done better with legal help. Referring to the judge and lawyers she said: “These people are in a club, it’s like they want to stay together and they don’t want a litigant in person to do well but he could not award me and my daughter such a low sum because it was actually impossible.”

Mr Justice Bennett, who heard the case in private over six days last month, released his judgment in summary yesterday pending Ms Mills’s appeal over full publication. He said that Ms Mills had sought £125 million and been offered £15.8 million by Sir Paul. The judge decided on a lump sum of £16.5 million, which with assets of £7.8 million gives £24.3 million, with £35,000 a year to cover maintenance for the couple’s child, Beatrice, 4, including a nanny and school fees. He also found that Sir Paul’s total assets, including his business assets, were about £400 million, or half what had been estimated.

Sir Paul’s lawyers are arguing for publicity, which Ms Mills yesterday claimed was a breach of human rights. She said that the judgment “involves private secure matters of my daughter”. Ironically, it is believed that Sir Paul had been concerned originally to keep matters confidential.

David Rosen, a litigator with a law firm in Edgware, Middlesex, who was in court each day to support Ms Mills, told The Times that he would be appearing to argue her case today as a solicitor-advocate. Ms Mills was “over the moon”, he said. “She is absolutely delighted, elated.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure