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”.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers