Judge scathing of Heather Mills

The judge who heard the divorce case between Beatle legend Paul McCartney, and his wife Heather Mills, has been scathing in his criticism of Mills.

In his judgement handed down on Monday, Mr. Justice Bennett discredited much of Mills evidence, at one point hinting part of it could have been characterised as fraudulent. He described her conduct on one occasion as ‘distasteful,’ and some claims as ‘exaggerated,’ or ‘make-belief.’

The judge conversely praised McCartney’s evidence saying it was ‘balanced’ and ‘honest.’

The judgement, which addressed financial provisioning sought by Mills, followed a six day hearing from 11 to 18 February. It was the final matter to be dealt with in the divorce proceedings.

The judgement was initially suppressed but Justice Bennett ultimately decided it could be made public. Mills had opposed its publication saying it would interfere with the security of the couple’s daughter, Beatrice. The judge didn’t agree.

Mills set out her claims for the hearing in a letter dated 31 January 2008. She advised the Court her reasonable needs for herself and Beatrice computed to £3,250,000 per annum, which the judge said amounted to ‘a Duxbury capitalised basis’ £99.5 million. Mills sought a property adjustment order in respect of a property in Beverley Hills called “Heather House” and of a property in New York State, 11 Pintail. She sought between £8 million and £12.5 million for a home in London, £3 million to purchase a property in New York, £500,000 to £750,000 to purchase an office in Brighton, a transfer to her of a mortgage over her sister’s (Fiona) Hove property, transfer of anproperty order over a Southampton property owned by McCartney in which Sonya Mills lives, and relief in respect of chattels. Further, Mills asked the Court “to place a significant monetary value on compensation for loss of earnings, contribution and conduct.’ She would retain her own properties at Pean’s Wood in Robertsbridge, Sussex and at Angel’s Rest in Hove. Overall her claim amounted to about £125 million (approximately a quarter of a billion US dollars). She also sought an order for costs.

McCartney’s position was set out in a letter of 6 February. Overall he said his former wife should exit the proceedings with total assets of £15 million (after a deduction for conduct) made up as Sonya Mills’ home and the mortgage on Fiona’s home to be transferred to Mills at a combined value of £683,000; Angel’s Rest (which has now been valued at £2 million); the net value of Pean’s Wood; the value of funds that either Mills has or should have; and a balancing lump sum provided certain art is returned to him. Further, McCartney would meet the reasonable cost of security for Mills and for their child, Beatrice, for 2 years not exceeding £150,000 per annum. For Beatrice, McCartney would pay periodical payments at £35,000 per annum and for a nanny not to exceed £25,000 per annum. Both these figures would be index-linked. The periodical payments would continue until Beatrice is 17 years old or completes secondary education, whichever is the later. Further, he would pay the school fees, uniform and reasonable extras, and health insurance premiums. He sought no order as to legal costs.

‘The barest outline of the background would be that the wife and the husband met in the spring of 1999, became engaged on 22 July 2001, married on 11 June 2002, separated on 29 April 2006 and ever since have been engaged in protracted matrimonial litigation,’ Justice Bennett said in his judgement. ‘They have one child, Beatrice born on 28 October 2003 who is therefore now 4 years old.’

‘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 £2 million and £3 million,’ said Judge Bennett.

‘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. She places great weight on the contributions she says she has made to counselling the husband’s children by his former marriage and to the husband’s professional career. She asserts that his assets are worth in excess of £800 million and that she is entitled to share in the “marital acquest,’ said Bennett.

‘During the course of this judgment I shall have to determine certain matters of fact,’ the judge wrote in his judgement.

‘Many of the issues of fact involve a head on conflict between the evidence of the wife and the husband, in which I shall also have to examine the relevant and important documents. It is therefore appropriate that I should briefly say something at this stage about the evidence of each of the parties,’ he said.

‘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,’ said Justice Bennett. ‘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,’ the judgement said. ‘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.’

Mills, in her evidence, told of significant earnings she made as a TV presenter and for fees made on the public speaking circuit, following the accident in which she lost her leg, after being hit by a police motorcycle. She told of her many trips to Croatia and her charity work.

‘Before I met Paul, I was speaking all over Europe and was considered one of the top ten female public speakers in Europe,’ she said in testimony. ‘I would speak on the same bill with eminent individuals such as Mark McCormack, Neil Armstrong and others. I commanded a fee ranging from £10,000 to £25,000 for a one hour speech ….”

She asserted in her affidavitt, ‘The assets I held at the time that I met Paul included the following:

a. A penthouse flat in Piccadilly worth approximately £500,000;

b. A property on Cross Street in Brighton, worth £250,000.

c. I rented a 5 bedroom barn in Hampshire, at a cost of £750.00 per month. I had maintained a London apartment and a country property since 1992. An example of this is attached….

d. I also owned a Green Mercedes, a Saab, and then a Rover as, I was sponsored by Saab and Rover. I also had my own driver, Trevor, and a free Saab limousine ….

e. I often lent money to friends, as I could afford to do so. An example of such loans is shown in my Form E.

I was wealthy and financially independent in my own right prior to our marriage.”

‘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,’ Justice Bennett wrote. ‘Her problem stems from the lack of any documentary evidence to support her case as to the level of her earnings. I do not doubt her commitment to charitable causes. She is passionate about them, particularly those that involve working for, and with, amputees. The DVDs shown to me in court amply bear that out. I do not doubt that she modelled successfully and was a public speaker. But the investigation in this case of her assets and earnings as at 1999 when the parties met do not bear out her case.’

‘The penthouse flat in Denman Street was not worth £500,000 in 1999,’ said Justice Bennett. ‘She sold it on 20 March 2001 for £385,000 after the London property market had risen substantially since 1999.’

‘She did not in 1999 own the property in Cross Street in Brighton. That was not bought until March 2000 when she gave up her property near King’s Somborne in Hampshire.’

‘During her cross-examination she asserted for the first time that in addition to property assets she had £2 million to £3 million in the bank,’ said Bennett. ‘No mention of such assets was made in her affidavit. There is no documentary evidence to support that assertion. During the hearing she was asked repeatedly to produce bank statements, which she said she thought she had in Brighton, to verify this claim. No bank statements were ever produced.’

‘The first tax return that the wife has been able to produce is for the year ending 5 April 1999,’ said the judgement. ‘The Revenue has not been able to supply any prior tax return. However her tax returns for the years ending 5 April 1999 and thereafter to 2006 are in the papers. Her gross turnover and net profit declared for “acting, modelling and public speaking” for the tax years 1999 to 2002 are, respectively (to the nearest £500) £62,000 and £11,500; £42,000 and £6000; £112,000 and £58,000; and £78,000 and £49,500. Thus her tax returns for 1999 and 2000 do not support the wife’s case of very significant earnings as set out in her affidavit.’

‘The wife’s riposte is that much of her earnings, which are not included in the tax returns, were sent direct to charities of her nomination,’ said the judge. ‘In her evidence she told me that as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings went direct to charities.’

‘However, the wife had to accept in her cross-examination that there was no documentary evidence, for example letters from the relevant charities, that her fees were sent direct to charities.’ When asked to set out in a schedule the income earned by her and sent direct to charities for the years 1997 and 2000 inclusive, she replied that she did not have the records requested to enable her to complete a schedule. ‘Furthermore, her assertion that she gave away to charity 80% to 90% of her earned income is inconsistent with having £2 million to £3 million in the bank in 1999.’

‘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,’ said Justice Bennett. ‘But the tax returns do not disclose any bank interest earned or only very small sums which are not consistent with holding £2 million to £3 million in a bank or banks. Moreover her tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all,’ said the judge.

‘In March 2000 the wife bought a property in Cross Street in Brighton for about £250,000, using £200,000 paid to her as compensation for the injuries arising out of her accident in 1993. There was no need therefore for her to touch the £2 million to £3 million in her bank account if such existed.’

‘In May 2001 the wife purchased in her own name 7, Western Esplanade in Hove i.e. Angel’s Rest for £750,000. On 18 May 2001 MPL Household, the husband’s company, and the wife entered into a formal legal charge whereby it lent the wife £800,000, interest free, secured on Angel’s Rest in order for the wife to be able to buy it…. The excess of £50,000 was to be used to improve the property…. In September 2001 the husband advanced the wife another £150,000 to carry out refurbishments. The inevitable question was asked of the wife – why the need for such a loan and advances if she had £2 million to £3 million in the bank? Even allowing for some depletion in the bank balances over an 18 month period from mid 1999 to early 2001, if she was as wealthy as she made out there would have been no need for this loan or for a loan of such magnitude,’ said Justice Bennett.

‘I find that the wife’s case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated. The assertion that she was a wealthy person in 1999 is, of course, the first step in her overall case that her career, which in 1999 she says was one producing rich financial rewards, was thereafter blighted by the husband during their relationship. It is therefore connected to the issue of “compensation”.’

The judge set out how tax returns during Mills’ time as McCartney’s wife indicated a substantial increase in earnings compared to tax returns tendered for the years prior to their meeting. He also took issue with her claims that her earnings potential was restricted by McCartney.

‘The wife complains that in April 2001 or thereabouts she was offered a contract by Marks and Spencers to model bras over a 12 month period for £1 million but that the husband would not allow her to undertake to do it,’ wrote the judge. ‘Her evidence was that he forbade her. The only document produced by the wife in connection with this offer is an e-mail from Jaime Brent, a creative director from Beckenham. There is nothing in it about any remuneration. The husband’s evidence was that even if such a contract for that sum was in the offing (which he doubted), nevertheless he and the wife discussed it and decided together that as they were in a relationship it was not appropriate for her to be seen modelling bras. She agreed. He also told me that if she had insisted he would not have opposed her. In my judgment the husband’s evidence is much more likely to be true,’ said Justice Bennett.

‘In 2002 the wife published a book “A Single Step” in which at page 313 is a reference to 2001 when she wrote of her charity and public speaking work expanding “to such an extent that it has left little time for anything else”.’

‘A further illustration of the expansion rather than contraction of her career is her appearances on the Larry King Show,’ said Bennett. ‘The wife accepted in her cross-examination that prior to her relationship with the husband she had never appeared on his show.’ Four appearances were made to talk about the Adopt A Minefield charity, to promote her book “A Single Step”, to discuss her pregnancy, and to discuss land mines, and a show with her husband in March 2006 in relation to their trip to Canada for an appeal against seal clubbing.

‘I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife’s career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite, as he says. He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as I find them do not in any way support her claim. “Compensation” therefore does not arise.
I now turn to the wife’s case of contribution,’ wrote Bennett.

‘The husband told me that the wife was a good mother to Beatrice. So far as the future is concerned I find that both parties will look after Beatrice under the shared care arrangements agreed by them last June before the Senior District Judge. i.e. Beatrice’s time with each parent is, and will be, split equally. However, Beatrice is now 4. In ten years time she will be 14 years old, the wife will be fifty years old and the husband 75 years old….’

‘As to the contributions in the past the wife seeks to paint the following picture. She was a good mother, which the husband readily concedes. However, the wife’s case is that her contribution throughout the marriage was “exceptional”. It is a central part of her case that she helped the husband to communicate better with his children, particularly Heather. She “counselled” him through his grieving over Linda. She gave him confidence after Linda’s death to restart touring. She says she helped him write songs. She suggested that he should have an acrylic finger nail because he had worn down his finger nail of his left hand to the point that it bled. She helped, it is said, with the set design and lighting on his tours. She went on every tour; indeed, she says, he insisted on her coming.’

The wife summed up her contribution in her affidavitt in this way: “I was his full time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist.’

‘The husband, in my judgment, met this issue, as with the other issues, candidly and honestly,’ said Justice Bennett. ‘He agreed that the wife together with his family and friends had helped him through his grieving for Linda. He said that for about a year after Linda’s death he was in a sad state and that the wife exhibited the normal reactions of any kindly person. He denied he had lost his confidence. Her case that in some way she single-handedly saved him was exaggerated.’

‘….He denied that she had encouraged him to return to touring. He firmly said that she contributed nothing on the tours. She did not design sets or assist with the lighting. He had a team of specialists for all technical matters. He was shown a DVD where the wife appeared in the credits under “artistic coordination”. He said that that was a favour to the wife, a romantic gesture.’

‘He agreed she attended many of his concerts because the wife enjoyed being there and loved him,’ Bennett wrote of McCartney.

‘Another DVD was shown in which the wife can be seen photographing the husband and his team on their private plane. She asserted that this was part of her work for the husband. The husband, I thought, in a telling comment, said that the wife liked to be the centre of attention and she enjoyed wielding a camera. He gave her full credit for the idea of the acrylic finger nail which, he told me, was a brilliant idea,’ said Bennett.

‘In my judgment the picture painted by the husband of the wife’s part in his emotional and professional life is much closer to reality than the wife’s account. The wife, as the husband said, enjoys being the centre of attention. Her presence on his tours came about because she loved the husband, enjoyed being there and because she thoroughly enjoyed the media and public attention. I am prepared to accept that her presence was emotionally supportive to him but to suggest that in some way she was his “business partner” is, I am sorry to have to say, make-belief.’

‘The wife, I find, was fully involved in the planning and construction of the Cabin, which was their matrimonial home. But the picture she describes of being the sole, or virtually the sole, organiser or arranger of renovating etc in the husband’s other properties is, I find, exaggerated. I am sure she played a significant part, but it was very much in conjunction with the husband.’

‘I have to say that the wife’s evidence that in some way she was the husband’s “psychologist”, even allowing for hyperbole, is typical of her make-belief. I reject her evidence that she, vis-à-vis the husband, was anything more than a kind and loving person who was deeply in love with him, helped him through his grieving and like any new wife tried to integrate into their relationship the children of his former
marriage. I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband’s professional flame and gave him back his confidence.’

‘…In her final submissions the wife described her contribution as “exceptional.’ I reject her case. I am afraid I have to say her case on this issue is devoid of reality. The husband’s evidence is far more persuasive,’ said Justice Bennett.

McCartney, in his evidence, said he knew he would be asked as to what extent his wealth appreciated during his marriage. He told the Court he asked his advisers Ernst & Young to determine that figure. ‘It will be seen that there has been an overall increase in my wealth of £39.6 million. The reasons for this increase are: (a) the money made by my tours and to a lesser extent other projects; and (b) passive growth in the value of my properties, investments and business interests by operation of market forces.’

‘This latter factor accounts for a good part of the increase (say £12 million). It is in no way referable to my endeavours. For instance, in relation to the MPL Group I do not have a day to day executive role in the management of the business; that is left to a professional staff. Of course, I am consulted in key decisions. The Ernst & Young Report makes clear that the revenue of these businesses is largely comprised of collecting copyright income. Indeed, the passive growth in relation to my business would have been greater but for the weakening dollar. This factor has also affected the value of my US properties and investments,’ McCartney said in his affidavitt.

‘Thus it is my case that the wealth built up during our marriage is approximately £39.6 million. This was the result of market growth in the value of the pre-marital assets, and from tours, where I was mainly performing works created prior to my marriage. As it happens, this analysis is in line with a letter written by me to Heather shortly before our marriage which reflected our belief as to what would be fair were the marriage to fail.’

‘Further, he asserted (and there is no dispute),’ said Justice Bennett, ‘that he made substantial capital payments to the wife over and above an annual allowance of £360,000 per annum. He lent her monies in respect of his purchase and renovation of Angel’s Rest. In 2002 and 2003 he gave her cash totalling £500,000. He lent Fiona Mills £421,000 to buy a property and purchased a house for Sonya Mills for £193,000. In 2005 he purchased jewellery for the wife worth £264,000.’

The judge also revealed that Mills was offered a sum similar to that which he has determined, more than a year ago, which Mills declined. ‘On 22 December 2006 Mishcon de Reya (the wife’s former solicitors) put forward the wife’s open offer that she would accept £50 million,’ Bennett said. ‘In his open offer of 25 January 2007 the husband offered to pay the wife a lump sum of £16.5 million which, together with the wife’s assets, would mean her exiting the marriage with about £20 million worth of assets,’ he said.

The judge also revealed a last-minute email from Mills saying she believed McCartney’s estate had been valued for the proceedings on a per-item basis, but the value of the estate could be much greater if sold collectively.

‘Accordingly, the wife believes that the estate may have a much greater value were it to be sold as a whole. That may be so; it may not be so. But I am afraid, with all due respect …. it does not affect my judgment,’ wrote the judge.

Following a mutlitude of evidence as to McCartney’s wealth including the Ernst & Young valuation,and experts appointed by Mills, the judge determined McCartney’s assets as being worht four hundred million pounds. ‘….Nevertheless I find that the husband’s total wealth amounts to approximately £400 million. I reject the wife’s case that he is worth £800 million. There is absolutely no evidence at all to support that figure or any figure anywhere near it,’ he said.

The judge was critical of Mills’ testimony in relation to loans she had received from McCartney. ‘In my judgment it is unnecessary to go so far as to characterise what the wife attempted as fraudulent. However, it is not an episode that does her any credit whatsoever. Either she knew or must have known that there were no loans on Thames Reach, yet she tried to suggest that there were and thereby obtain monies by underhand means,’ he said.

‘Her attempts when cross-examined to suggest that she may have got in a muddle and confused this property with others, to my mind, had a hollow ring. In the light of the husband’s generosity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife’s behaviour distinctly distasteful. In any event, as Mr Mostyn (McCartney’s Queens Counsel) rightly submitted, it damages her overall credibility,’ said Bennett.

Following the handing down of the judgement on Monday Mills issued a statement saying she was ‘happy,’ and ‘relieved,’ the divorce had been settled.

‘I am delighted with the overall outcome as I feel as if a great weight has been lifted,’ she said.

‘I have enormous respect for a judicial system that allows an individual to represent themselves…no matter how significant the opposition.’

‘It is with great excitement and energy that I will return to normal life,’ said Mills. ‘My recent experiences, although very painful, increases my enthusiasm for I am first and foremost a mother of a wonderful four year old daughter that, gives purpose and meaning to all that I do.’

‘I am a woman…a positive, loving, independent woman who fell in love…like so many other couples, experienced the painful realisation of divorce. This is not how Paul and I intended it to be, sadly though this was the outcome,’ she added.