FIVE crucial documents were withheld from the leaked divorce dossier of Lady McCartney which alleged that her estranged husband violently attacked her.

The missing pages apparently cast her in a bad light in her response to Sir Paul McCartney’s petition to the High Court seeking a divorce on the ground of her “unreasonable behaviour”.

Lady McCartney, 38 — the former model Heather Mills — was described by friends yesterday as appalled at the suggestion that she was behind the leak to newspapers of claims about the former Beatle.

“Heather is in floods of tears,” a friend said. “I absolutely believe she was not responsible for any of this.”

The five pages omitted from the documents leaked to newspapers allegedly relate specifically to her response to allegations made by Sir Paul in his statement to the High Court, which is bound by strict rules of confidentiality.

One source close to the case, limbering up to be one of the most bitter in recent history, said: “I think you will find that there was something in those pages that was derogatory about Heather.”

Both sides denied speculation yesterday that Sir Paul, 64, might apply for their child, Beatrice Milly, 2, to be given residence with him.

Mishcon de Reya, the legal firm representing Lady McCartney, continued yesterday in its attempts to find the source of the leak of the documents, which had not yet been submitted to the High Court. One theory in legal circles was that the intention might have been that the negative headlines generated by the allegations would encourage Sir Paul to agree a swift settlement, to limit any more damaging publicity.

“They presumed that he would seek a gagging clause,” one source said. “As all this stuff is now out in the public domain that seems less likely and is so awful for Sir Paul he might now settle more quickly.” But the couple could be heading for the most public divorce in legal history. Sir Paul has said that he will defend the allegations vigorously.

Lawyers predicted yesterday that if it is a contested hearing — which is extremely rare — it would be held in public, attracting worldwide coverage. The knowledge that they will be “washing their dirty linen in public” will put pressure on both parties for a settlement.

Tina Jones, of Mace & Dunn, the North West law firm, said: “If these allegations come from genuine court papers, and no settlement is reached, the matter will proceed to an open trial — with witnesses cross-examined, just like any other trial.”

She added that the allegations would not make any difference to any financial settlement. “The fact that one person makes these allegations does not mean more money. For conduct to be taken into account, it has to be really serious.” The consensus among lawyers yesterday was that the leak would do nothing to improve Lady McCartney’s chances of a bigger settlement. James Stewart, a family lawyer with Manches, the London firm, said: “A contested divorce is very unusual. But she is saying, ‘The marriage has broken down, but I don’t want to rely on Sir Paul’s version’. Either he then has to back down, or they compromise.”

The likely outcome, Mr Stewart added, was that the couple would agree that the marriage had irretrievably broken down on the basis of their “cross petitions” and on the understanding that neither admitted the allegations of the other.

The division of finances would then be the next, and separate, stage, he added. “But at any time there can be negotiations on a settlement.”

Tony Roe, a family partner at Boyes Turner, said: “While the public may be agog over such allegations, a judge is really not going to be interested who wins a media war.” The couple would have to establish that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and behaviour was the most likely reason to be cited. “Where both sides are alleging bad behaviour, the best course of action is to agree a consent order, a divorce by mutual consent, without the allegations having to be proved.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle