Heather Mills was castigated yesterday as a greedy fantasist who indulged in
make-believe; a “less than candid witness” and a woman whose claims about
her marriage to Sir Paul McCartney were “devoid of reality”.
In a stinging judgment that she had attempted to have suppressed, Mr Justice
Bennett said that her whole attitude was “me too” or “if he has it, I want
it too”. He also suggested that Ms Mills might have made a “fraudulent”
attempt to extract money from her husband and condemned her behaviour as
“distinctly distasteful”.
The judge demolished Ms Mills’s claims for a £125 million share of her former
husband’s fortune over 57 pages in a judgment released after her last-ditch
appeal to suppress it failed.
His strong criticisms exposed only too clearly why Ms Mills had been
determined to stop its release after being awarded £24.3 million on Monday,
based on living needs of £600,000 a year. The judge said that she was a
“strong-willed and determined personality” who had shown great fortitude in
overcoming her disability. “She has conducted her own case before me with a
steely, yet courteous, determination.” She was a “kindly person” who
was “devoted to her charitable causes”. But she was “a less than impressive
witness” whose evidence was “not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also
less than candid”.
Sir Paul’s evidence was “balanced”, the judge said. “He expressed himself
moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was
consistent, accurate and honest. I regret to have to say I cannot say the
same about the wife’s evidence.”
She and Sir Paul made a series of allegations against each other but the judge
ruled that they were irrelevant. Ms Mills accused Sir Paul of treating her
abusively and assaulting her in April 2006; abusing alcohol and drugs, being
possessive and jealous and insensitive to her disability. Sir Paul alleged
that she had bugged a call between himself and his daughter, Stella, in
which the daughter made “very unflattering” comments about Miss Mills.
His lawyers also alleged that Ms Mills, or someone acting on her behalf,
leaked to the media all or part of her divorce papers, which contained
distorted or untrue allegations about Sir Paul. She had allegedly verbally
abused him, was extremely jealous, made untrue allegations of violence in
their marriage and showed “a consistent inability to tell the truth”. Mr
Justice Bennett said: “Individually and collectively these actions, it is
said, represent a deliberate attempt by the wife to ruin the husband’s
reputation.”
Each side also accused the other of leaking information to the media.
The judge rejected one by one the claims by Ms Mills — that she was wealthy by
the time she met the former Beatle; that he held back her career; or that he
was worth £825 million. He questioned her claim that she gave 80 to 90 per
cent of her earnings to charity.
He said: “The wife accepted that had she had £2 million to £3 million in the
bank in 1999 she is most likely to have put such a sum into an account
earning interest. But the tax returns do not disclose any bank interest
earned or only very small sums. Moreover her tax returns disclose no
charitable giving at all.”
As for her claim to need £125 million (although she indicated she would take
£50 million), this was “much too high in every respect”. “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.”
Ms Mills’s case was based on the claim that her career when she met Sir Paul
produced rich financial rewards and was blighted by him during their
relationship. This was “wholly exaggerated”. The judge agreed with Sir Paul
that their “true relationship” began upon marriage in June 2002 and not, as
Ms Mills asserted, in March 2000.
“The husband’s wife, Linda, had died in 1998 after a marriage of 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: “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. The objective facts do not support her case.”
In an attempt to seek compensation for her lost career, Ms Mills said that Sir
Paul had advised her “against 99 per cent” of “countless, lucrative business
opportunities”. But far from Sir Paul restricting her career he did the
opposite, lending his name to her business and charitable activities.
The judge accepted that Ms Mills was a good mother — which Sir Paul readily
conceded — but rejected her claim that her contribution to the marriage was
“exceptional”.
Mr Justice Bennett said that by the time Sir Paul, 65, met Ms Mills he was
“fabulously wealthy”.
The judge said that a property, Thames Reach, bought by Ms Mills out of money
given to her by Sir Paul, had no mortgage on it. But she had requested
£480,000 to pay an allegedly outstanding sum. Mr Justice Bennett said he did
not have to decide if the attempt was fraudulent, but added: “It is not an
episode that does her any credit whatsoever. In the light of the husband’s
generosity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife’s behaviour
distinctly distasteful . . . it damages her overall credibility.”
As to Ms Mills’s claim that she had been vilified and could not get work, the
judge said that she had had a bad press. But to some extent she was “her own
worst enemy”.
I hope that the Inland Revenue is having a close look at Heather Mills' tax position.
In fact, how can we ensure that they do?
Andrew, Farnham, UK/Surrey
Donna of North York Canada -
1) "In Canada it is a verified fact that the one with the most money wins in Family Law". That's great - the hearing, however, was held in London
2) Really look in your heart why you hate her so much. Could it be because she is assertive and the world can't handle assertive women? No, I'd venture to see the reason she has attracted so much opprobrium is because she has successfully painted herself as a conniving gold digger throughout every step of this whole sorry affair.
The notion that she thought herself responsible for a resurgence in Mr McCartney's career is laughable - hilarious even. It's Paul McCartney we're talking about here - a man who's career hardly needs a shot in the arm
Thom, Auckland, NZ
It is unfortunate for celebrities and for all of us that these private family matters are played out in the public eye. Perhaps, if we as the voyeuristic public would stop feeding on the misfortunes of others such media practices would cease. To state the obvious: these are real people, with real feelings and real weaknesses. We stand in judgement easily because we are not subject to the same scruitiny. We criticise to make ourselves feel better. The coarseness of modern society is disturbing. Where are civility and kindness? Where are respect and empathy? This obsession with the tragedies which befalls others is symptomatic of a much deeper flaw in society.
Kimberly, Wilkesboro, NC USA
'Despite the fact that Ms Mills didn't get nearly as much money as she demanded, she still got far more than she ought. Just 4 years of marriage, during which she lived a life of idle luxury'
During which she had a child and a miscarriage. I think I could do without that kind of 'luxury'.
Oh, and Earth to deluded fans of 'Sir Paul': being immensely creative does not make one a saint beyond reproach. He was attracted to this so-called vile woman so what does that make him?
Louise Mills, Cambridge,
Paul McCartney it is said did not want a pre nuptial agreement because it is unromantic. That may be slightly true, if misguided. What this and other cases show is that you have an unromantic prenuptial agreement whether you want it not the minute you marry. Why else would the "rules" give this vile woman the money? She ought to get not even 24P. But the judge despite his apparent thoughts was more or less obliged to carry out this co called judgement.
D.L. Stephens, York, England
Before anyone makes a comment they should read the court transcripts - not the tabloids. I applaud Heather Mills for standing up for her beliefs. In Canada it is a verified fact that the one with the most money wins in Family Law. Guess who? How could she possibly be treated equally when Paul has so much fame - and "Sir" status? I attended Rotary's Night of a Thousand Diners and saw a video showing Paul and Linda champion the Land Mine problems in war torn countries. You could tell that she was earnestly trying to do her part for the victims. Princess Diana did the same and she sure didn't receive the criticism from the public. I am glad that she made a statement for women. Time now for the guys to stop whining, put themselves in the woman shoes and see how they would like to be treated. Remember there are always two sides to a story. Really look in your heart why you hate her so much. Could it be because she is assertive and the world can't handle assertive women?
Donna , North York, Canada
Even allowing for the evident anti-Heather bias in many media reports, I think the Judge has only confirmed the patterns in Ms Mills behaviour that most of us have come to see and hear about over the last few years.
I hope she can take her generous settlement and quietly rebuild her life. But I fear there will yet be a few more swigs from the cup of bitterness for us all to see as the need to "get even" with Paul and courts grabs hold again.
So sad.
Bruce, Canberra, Australia
i don't believe heather mills deserves anything like the figure she has been awarded. it is quite obvious to me from the judgement she has been underhand and dishonest from day one. my heart goes out to beatrice who one day will read all this and see her mother in a different light.
CR East Sussex
carole russell, east sussex, united kingdom
I think the money will run through her fingers like water. I would'nt have awarded her 23p.
Barbara, Durham, United Kingdom
Finally a Justice with an ounce of sense. Huzzah! Would there were more of his ilk.
Len, Hamilton, Canada/ON
Why on earth is she still getting 24 million? Plus child support?
How did the judge arrive at such an exhorbitant figure? Why was she not just awarded child support?
Heather, Jhb, South Africa
Dear oh dear. Many of you need to go and actually read the judgement before you pass your own.
Sir Paul stated in affadavit that Heather was a good mother.
This has NOTHING to do with child custody, it's about how much cash Sir Paul had to give her. She blatantly lied about her career opportunities and her wealth before meeting Sir Paul. In the end it's sour grapes. I believe the quote from Heather was 'He gets to travel in Class A and his daughter has to travel in Class B'. Call me mental, but having £24 million quid hardly limits your travel choices.
Subway, Guildford, UK
The truth is, sad to say; divorces more often than not shed poor light on both parties.
However, in this case there’s also good light. Heather’s work with amputees should not be brushed aside - she greatly inspired and encouraged my friend’s child who also she lost her leg in an accident. And of course, Paul’s long standing fame and contribution to society is self-evident.
Nevertheless, generally speaking:
It takes two to tango;
It takes two to make a marriage work or fail; and
It takes two to ruin a child’s life.
So, it’s time both Heather and Paul put it all behind them for their owns sakes but more importantly for Beatrice’s [the press should also consider the effect of yet more publicity on Beatrice].
So, please let Beatrice grow up without further ado.
Jo, Devon, England
Perjury carries a starting sentance of 2 years, but so often courts over look women commiting purjury in these situations based on clear emotions. She should still be punished though i would agree.
Secondly for all the people asking for pre nup, that wont hold here, you can have one but it will be blown away in british courts especially with children.
Huseyin , Edmonton, UK/London
Can someone please explain to me the following:
What the bloody hell that vile woman was wearing - is it the norm to turn up for your divorce hearing dressed as a jester?
Why she hasn't been charged with contempt of court for the water incident - particularly as even she said she was calm whilst doing it?
And finally, why anyone in their right mind would try to stick up for her?
I'm a professional woman and believe quite passionately in equality but this horrid woman has made a mockery of the English courts, a fool of herself and made women in general look bad. That this foul creature has been granted money and property to the tune of £24m despite quite blatantly being a lying and manipulative toad disgusts me.
I fervently hope she has the good grace to disappear into obscurity... or even better America, where she can ply the talk show circuit with her tale of woe.
That said, if I had £400m in the bank, getting shut of her for £24m would seem a bargain!
Rebekah, Leeds, England
Fraudulent claims? Outstanding mortgages and property values!
Income tax evasion? If she had 2 to 3 Million, as agreed it would be in a savings accounts. Why is she not putting this interest on her tax returns. If she didn’t actually have this money, then isn’t this another fraudulent claim!
Incorrect Income tax returns? If she gave 80% to 90% to charity, why is this not on the income tax returns form? Saying her accountant forget to “tick the boxâ€, therefore is in incompetent. Is he going to sue her? I expect not.
Contempt of Court? Throwing water and comments outside the court!
Less than candid, aka lying?
Why is she now not being prosecuted?
Stuart, Sheffield, South Yorkshire
C. Alexander Brown, Rockcliffe Park
We certainly do not want to go down that litigous route, thanks. It has done your legal system absolutley no favours. Her actions have done enough harm. Water cannot be construed as assault, for the love of all that is Holy! You lot will be suing clouds next! :)
Kind regards
Timoth, Briggletonbury,
Mardelle from Canada - the English court system does not victimise women in divorce cases. In fact it does completely the opposite by, for the most part, awarding custody of children and half the man's assets to the woman, often with complete disregard for his needs or true ability as a father. This can ruins the man's life, so is it any small wonder that given this inherent bias in the judicial system, men in the UK are often terrified of marriage?? I think Ms Mills got much more of a payout than she actually deserved (she certainly hasn't "earned" a penny of it), and should definitely be at the very least brought up on charges of contempt of court for the water incident. Not a pleasant individual. I feel sorry for Beatrice. And well done Sir Paul for staying above it all!
GP, Edinburgh,
People are so blinded by media spin and perception. Paul is a Beatle therefore how can he possibly be the one in the wrong. Has is occurred to anyone that they are both as bad as each other... in fact they are a fairly typical couple spatting over a divorce but because of his fame they can fight using the full worlds media. It is pathetic, if he was any nice, better than her he would have ensure it all stayed private. A brief appearance on TV from him months ago would have saved all this hassle. He knew this was going to Court.... at any point he could have stopped it. Think about a couple you know who got divorced with a bit of a battle. Add international news media and see you can see a potentially simular story!
Claire , Lyndhurst, Uk
It's all water under the bridge, or rather, over the head :-)
Alan, Copenhagen, Denmark
If she's to have half of his earnings it should be his earnings from the time they were together/married. When else would she have been able to contribute to his businesses? - unless of course she bought all those CDs etc?
To top it off, she comes across aggressive and vile. She can't be happy.
Let that be the end of it.
louise, guadalajara, mexico
it also proves that these rich people somehow earn so much money but get out of paying their rightful tax liability. It is left to the common man to give away almost half his salary week in week out to keep this country afloat. I am sure she uses all the amenities at her disposal, she does doesnt want to contribute to the countries financies. Why doesnt the tax man go after her instead of the common man.
s ghataura, slough, berks
Despite the fact that Ms Mills didn't get nearly as much money as she demanded, she still got far more than she ought. Just 4 years of marriage, during which she lived a life of idle luxury, yet she walks away with enough money to guarantee that she can continue in idleness for the rest of her life. Typical of how the Family courts favour women, especially when there are children involved. It's high time the system was brought into the 21st century, to redress the balance so that women only get what they have legitimately earned by the sweat of their own brow, and where men get equal rights in respect of their children.
Carol, Derby,
I have no sympathy for this woman. Harping on the fact that Sir Paul had a fortune of 800 million "which everyone has known for years", or even the verified 400 million,was earned before he married her. She should have no claim on the income or assets from before the marriage. I have no doubt that their daughter will be very well cared for and will inherit a share of this vast estate eventually. What a greedy and selfish woman she is. I very much doubt that her daughter's welfare was paramount when she started this circus.
A.Barry, Andover, UK
For God's sake, don't give her custody. Put her in it!
leila , manchester, uk
To Mardelle in Ottawa, I agree that the family law system is flawed and outdated, but only to the extent that a man is expected to continue to provide for his working ex if their marriage ends. I do sympathise with you under your current circumstances, but how does being married to Sir Paul for ONLY FOUR YEARS entitle her to yearly maintenance of £600k? If you read the judgement, you will find that she demanded maintenance worthy of someone 'married to an icon'. It's hard to be on Heather's side in this case.
Tim, Ealing, London, UK
Astonishing that the whole of the UK press photograpic core cannot muster the skill EVER to take a decent picture of a normal, attractive woman.
Morag, Bristol, Bristol
time to let this all rest, most people are fed up of this story anyway
linda , carmarthenshire, uk
Having followed the divorce proceedings in the media I now Know the tue meaning of a GOLD DIGGER.
Kenneth Salmon, Loughborough, Leics, UK
"I have no doubt that he was still very emotionally tied to linda"... and we're supposed to take this judge seriously?
everyone told paul to steer well clear of her. if he didn't, he's only got himself to blame and should expect no sympathy.
after tripe like ebony and ivory, anyone calling paul a creative genius is as mad as heather. which is quite mad enough.
jem, london, uk
I trust HM Revenue & Customs will be looking at the differing account of Miss Mills' as to her financial wealth and that which was declared on her tax returns.
Mike Thomas, London,
Barry, yes those comments are very much understatement.
Judges quite rightly never normally comment on behaviour - not their role; it doesn't help the matter to be resolved; undermines impartiality and may inadvertently give grounds for an undeserved appeal.
The judge's words are the equivalent of a loud snort of outraged disgust.
Yes, she has the money, but is a widely-reviled laughing stock: not such a good deal for a person so desiourous of the celebrity spotlight!
James, a lawyer.
James O'Connell, London, UK
I am a beatles fan but have to say teating Heather mills is so, so, so unfair. She is a great woman, having some mistakes in the past, which many so-called movie stars are still doing.
She is a courageous lady. She is a model of courage as the newspaper used to call her, before marrying Paul. Does Mine trade playing a secret role here?
mitra, norrkoping, sweden
If, as Ms Mills has claimed, she gives 80% - 90% of her earnings to charity....let's see her do it now!
Harry, Paris,
Unless the judges comments about Millsare another example of the English love of understatement, those comments seem to me mildly critical rather than damning.
She has after all come from nowhere and ended up richer than all the lawyers and judges involved. The bad headlines will soon be forgotten but those millions will remain
Barry, Nagasaki,
The moral of the story is don't ever get married.
Jason Mead, Bristol, England
Do you recall Heather Mills earlier rant on TV where she said she was not doing it for the money? Well how can she face the public after claiming £125million?
She claimed in court she would not be able to work again. Poppycock, she will be touting herself and her ugly wares all over the place in days and doubtless will earn further millions from her dalliance with Sir Paul.
Ronald Tarquin, London, England
Her delusions are absolutely hysterical. She talks of Paul putting her and HER daughter through two years of hell - no Heather, YOU put Beatrice through it! It doesn't matter a damn if "everyone knew he was worth £800m for 15 years", not only were you not with him when he was earning all this, YOU didn't earn a single penny of it!! You have NO RIGHT to it! Earn it yourself!
I am behind the other very serious calls here:
1. Is Beatrice safe to remain with this psychotic mother?
2. Heather Mills should be prosecuted for contempt of court for the water throwing incident.
3. She should be investigated and prosecuted - and jailed if necessary - for tax evasion.
4. She should be prosecuted for perjury for lying in court.
Laura Roberts, London, UK
She is the type that gives women a bad name. The world would be better off without her. I will not give any charity she is involved with a cent. Sir Paul- you have my deepest sympathy. Get your child away from her.
CJ, Gold Coast, Australia
Sad but true...I am a Canadian woman ...going through similar challenges in the family court system in this country. Of course our court system is the same as in England. All I can say simply is this. The family court justice system is seriously outdated and full of flaws. High time someone step up to the plate and get rid of the old cloaks and daggers from the gallows and the strange wiggs and robes and wake up! It's 2100 Century...Stop victimizing women and children and upholding the wealthy and errogant husbands. One by one they all will fall and all the Kings horses and all the King's men...could not put the ridiculous and unjust legal system together again!
Thank God!
Mardelle Latham, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
shame on Ms Mills, does she really need all that money. She did not earn it...Paul did. all she should have gotten was child support..
Joan Juskiw, St. Albert Alberta, Canada
Why would a man of 60 think that a woman of 38 was marrying him for anything else but his money and fame? How silly of him to think otherwise and not sign a pre-nup? His children from his previous marriage warned him repeatedly or so I read in the press about Ms. Mills. Its all a bit of a laugh!!!!
Annie, Melbourne, Australia
Good.
Lois Rees, Baltimore, MD
Heather,sorry,I agree with Mr. Justice Bennett's judgement & ASSESMENTof both parties. What a shame you could not work this out in private for your daughters sake. Hope you will still be a good mother to Beatrice,as Sir Paul has stated.
geri, media, pa
All that trouble from Ms mils and she still walks away with £24 million!
hall, Sheffield, UK
I'd like to ask three questions.
Is she balanced enough to bring up a small child properly?
Will she be brought to account for misleading the court?
Most importantly, will she be brought to book for attacking Fiona Shackleton in court? If not, why not?
Annie , Bath, UK
Is it just me or does anyone else think the sight of the media tearing into this woman a most unedifying spectacle. Frankly, she maybe a slightly deranged and deluded individual but that does not give me or anyone else the right to judge her.
David, Mishref, Kuwait
This woman cannot be a fit mother - Paul must be awarded sole custody, he has already proved himself to be an outstanding father. My wife who has met two of his children affirms that they are balanced and well mannered.
Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK
You have to wonder whether Mills has the mental stability to properly bring up a child. It would worry me if I was the father.
Graham, Wakefield, England
Apparently she lied in Court - I thought that was a crime. She should have got nothing out of this marriage - only the child should have been taken care of. One wonders whether she is capable of looking after a child.
Ian Burgess, Bristol,
A perfect example of Borderline Personality Disorder. Unfortunately, she will be all too intrusive in his life because of the blameless daughter.
Bonnie, Toronto, Canada
She went digging for gold, and found it, but then there's no fool like an old fool!
He's well rid of her; let's hope she doesn't poison the mind of the little girl. What will she think, when she's grown up, of her mother's behavior? Ghastly woman!
jane, warwickshire, england
"...He was consistent, accurate and honest. I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife’s evidence.â€
Here is the judge saying, quite clearly, that Mills gave dishonest, inconsistent and inaccurate testimony before his court....yet she is NOT punished for her dishonesty...instead she has been REWARDED with an award of nearly 25 million pounds of Paul McCartney's money...for only FOUR years of marriage. His ability to pay is no justification.
Surely this makes a mockery of British justice?
The excessive amount awarded to that woman can only be described as irrational and irresponsible...especially in view of her conduct!
Note also, as mentioned by another poster, that Mills showed complete contempt for the Court by assaulting McCartney's lawyer...with complete impunity!
It appears that apallingly bad judgment has been shown in this case, along with failure to uphold the dignity of the court, and failure to dispense sound, common-sense justice.
Garth Strong, San Diego, USA
I will marry Paul now if he will have me.
Though I do have a beef eating fetish.
JW Frogen, Beantown, USA
Can the Attorby General and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner explain why this Mills person has not been charged with assault? Furthermore, assault committed on the premises of the court? What do we have here, more of prominent people given a free pass on wrongdoing? This Mills person should have been arrested immediately after she threw water on Sir McCartney's lawyer, who is, after all an Officer of the Court, as all lawyers are. I wait to see if another act in the erosion of the system of law will be tolerated, along with that of illegal drug use by celebrities. Some official should, as they say in America, "Step up to the plate." They also say in America, if you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. A phrase coiuned by thw late Stokely Carmichael.
C. Alexander Brown, Rockcliffe Park,
Credit to the judge - he appears to have conducted the case with integrity and intelligence.
With Sir Paul having 400million in the bank, a mere 24million to get rid of that vile woman is a bargain.
Richard, Tokyo, Japan
The story of Sir Paul's divorce nightmare gives credence to the oft-uttered lament of the famous -- we are only human. The man is a creative genius of immense gifts which he has shared with the world...but to his regret a rather poor judge of character. A trait all too common among us all.
J Henry, Los Angeles, CA
Paul's hair is looking better ......
Fiona, Fleurida,
I am a fairly big strong guy ..But Heather Mills scares me..
Peter Kennedy, Vancouver BC, Canada
Now Mills can marry a 20 year old stud who will do the same to her.
Scott, Vancouver, BC