Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageHeather Mills Cannot Stop Publication of Divorce Details, Says High Court Judge

By Michelle Duffy     Mar 18, 2008 in Entertainment
The evidence which Heather Mills used in her divorce case against Sir Paul McCartney should be made public, according to today's ruling in the High Court. Mills wants to keep that testimony private, saying it would be damaging to her family.
In her speech outside court yesterday after receiving the biggest divorce payout in family court history, she informed the press and the listening world that she would be back in the court room again today to appeal against the ruling that certain details about her former marriage to the ex Beatle would be made public.
Yet according to the BBC this morning, a ruling in the High Court by judge, Mr Justice Bennett has claimed that due to inaccurate evidence given by Ms Mils in her divorce case against Sir Paul, she would not be allowed to appeal, despite her claim that there were private details regarding herself and their daughter which she felt, would be damaging.
She had stated outside court yesterday after it was announced that she would receive a total of £24.3m from her former husband, (a fifth of what she actually wanted), that she was prepared for another fight in court to appeal against the publication of their marriage. The statements revealing private secrets into their four year marriage she said, would be dangerous to her daughter and affect her future security. The amount which she will receive from Sir Paul was a figure which was reached by the court after the couple had failed to agree on a final sum.
Ms Mills had wanted to get £125m from Sir Paul and this is a list of how she had previously reached this figure:
A) £3.2m per year for herself and Beatrice
B) Properties in Los Angeles and New York
C) Between £8m and £12.5m for a home in London
D) £3m to purchase a New York home
E) £500,000 to £750,000 to buy a London office
F) Monetary value on compensation for loss of earnings
Sir Paul on the other hand only wanted to offer her £15.8m to walk away from the marriage. This is how he and his lawyers arrived at this lowly figure,
A) Costs, not exceeding £150,000 per year, for security would be met for two years
B) Annual, index-linked payments of £35,000 for Beatrice until she is 17 or ends secondary education
C) Nanny would be employed for no more than £25,000
D) He would discharge costs for school fees, uniforms and reasonable extras
E) Lump sum for the return of some art
She was not present in court when the judge ruled that the case would be made public, yet he had personally described her as being a "kindly person and devoted to her charitable causes".
He went on,
"She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination."
He had said of Sir Paul during the hearing,
"He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest."
Ms Mills had told the press that she had suspected the judge to be on Sir Paul's side all along.
Mr Justice Bennett said,
"She had every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under. 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."
Yet representing Ms Mills in court today, David Rosen, expressed her concerns for the welfare of her daughter after the case would be published. Mr Rosen said,
"Miss Mills believes her daughter will be put in real danger. It is most disturbing."
More about Heather mills, Incorrect, Evidence
 
Entertainment Video
Latest News
Top News