After a six-day hearing in the Family Division of the High Court, Heather Mills has been awarded a lump sum of £16.5million, to be paid by ex-husband Sir Paul McCartney.   The judge found that her own assets, including current properties, amounted to £7.8million, which means that she leaves the marriage with a total of £24.3million.   Sir Paul’s assets were found by the judge to be £400million, and not £800million as had apparently been claimed.
Maintenance for Beatrice, their four-year-old daughter, is to be at the rate of £35,000, with her father paying for her nanny and school fees.

Mr Justice Bennett, who heard the case, had intended that the judgment should be published.   Heather Mills, who has been representing herself after sacking her lawyers, applied to prevent that publication pending her appeal to the Court of Appeal.   Her request was granted;  only a summary of the judgment has been made public. It appears, from comments made by Ms Mills after the hearing, that she believes that the fact that she was representing herself left her at a disadvantage.   That being the case, it will be interesting to see whether she decides to employ legal representatives should the matter go to appeal.

It has been widely speculated in the media that she could have settled for a total of £55million, had she been willing to agree not to make public any details about her marriage.   The summary explicitly refers to an order made that bars husband or wife, or anyone acting on behalf of either, from publishing anything in the case which concerns their daughter Beatrice, the case itself and any ‘marital confidences’, at least until the appeal hearing.   

It may be that Heather Mills has only intends to appeal the judge’s decision to publish his judgment;  if she appealed the whole order, it would presumably be on the basis that she believes she should have been given more.  This was a short marriage, lasting only four years, which will undoubtedly have been a factor in the court’s assessment of the amount to which she is entitled.   Another consideration will have been that Sir Paul’s wealth was largely accumulated before the marriage took place.

The summary particularly emphasises the refusal of the judge to allow either party to raise the alleged conduct of the other in the proceedings.  Unfortunately, prior to the hearing itself, there had been a good deal of acrimony and complaint in connection with allegations of behaviour on both sides.  The couple must have been advised by the expert lawyers representing them that such allegations would have no effect on the decision of the court.   But, sadly, Beatrice is bound to learn what has been said by her parents about one another as she grows up.   Indeed, should the case go to the Court of Appeal the hearing will be in public.

Ms Mills has been awarded one of the largest payouts on record in this country.   However, in the context of Sir Paul’s wealth, it does not appear to match awards in other recent cases where marriages to rich men have been of short duration.   Family lawyers will be taking note and waiting to know whether the award itself is to be appealed with keen interest.   

Maureen Mullally