Judge in McCartney divorce calls Mills “distasteful, explosive, volatile”

McCartney and his lawyer, Fiona Shakelton, whose hair was wet after Mills threw a pitcher of water over her in court
The UK Telegraph has excerpts from the judge’s ruling on the Mills-McCartney divorce, and it’s a damn good read. The Judge outlines the way that Heather lied about her financial situation before she met Paul, blamed him for not supporting and advancing her career when the opposite was true, and generally said she was exaggerating and fibbing throughout. The judge also made it clear that Heather’s behavior in court, in which he caught her out in several lies, influenced the final amount of the settlement she was given. Mills walked away with $33 million in cash and $15.6 million in assets from her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney yesterday. McCartney’s fortune is estimated at from $800 million to $1.65 billion.

So much for Heather bragging that she saved $1.2 million by not using a real legal team in court. She probably cost herself $10 million more with that asinine move, and reading between the lines it sounds like she annoyed that judge every day he was on this case.

In his full ruling on the McCartney divorce, the judge was highly critical of Heather Mills’s evidence. Mr Justice Bennett wrote:

“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. 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.”

Addressing Miss Mills’s claim that Sir Paul failed to contribute to her charity work:

“I have to say that the facts as I find them to be do not support the wife’s case. Within two months of the parties meeting in May 1999 the husband donated £150,000 to the wife’s charity (the Heather Mills Health Trust). In December 2002 and again in December 2003 the husband made a gift of £250,000 outright to the wife, thus plainly giving her the opportunity to make donations to charity.”

He concluded:

“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.”

And he attacked Miss Mills for exaggerating how much money she needs to live:

“These items in her budget which I have touched upon above, illustrate generally speaking, how unreasonable (even generously interpreted) are the claimed needs of the wife. In the absence of any sensible proposal by the wife as to her income needs I must do the best I can on the material I have.

“If the wife feels aggrieved about what I propose she only has herself to blame. 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.”

Making his final financial ruling, the judge again criticised Miss Mills for making exaggerated, unsubstantiated demands:

“If the wife considers that my adjudication to be unfairly low, then I would say this. In the end it is for the applicant in ancillary relief proceedings to make a rational and logical case for the award that is sought. If an applicant puts forward an excessive, indeed exorbitant, “claim” which then she (or he) attempts to moderate by way of open offers, but which offers still fail to be supported by rational and logical bases, then the applicant has only herself (or himself) to blame if the court awards much less than what the applicant expects.

“This case is a paradigm example of an applicant failing to put a rational and logical case and thus failing to assist the court in its quasi-inquisitorial role to reach a fair result.”

[From Telegraph.co.uk via Gossip Rocks]

Heather Mills said she was oh so happy with her $33 million and now there’s word that she plans to move to the states and annoy the hell out of the Americans with the help of sneering lawyer Gloria Allred. Maybe if she would have kept her lawyers for her divorce case she would have even more money to use to get attention for how she’s been personally wronged by just about everyone she’s dealt with in life.

Heather did get her petty revenge on McCartney’s lawyer, Fiona Shakleton, by throwing a jug of water over her in court yesterday. She was said to have done it after learning that she was only going to take home $33 million. Mills has accused Shakleton of calling her names, and during her impromptu press conference yesterday and on Larry King Live she was careful to add that Shakleton was supposedly mean to her “when I was in a wheelchair.”


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

26 Responses to “Judge in McCartney divorce calls Mills “distasteful, explosive, volatile””

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Tabby says:

    Full report via the BBC news website published here:

  2. Kevin says:

    Alrighty Heather,,,you’ve been paid. Now be a good lass and hop outa our faces. thank you,,that is all.

  3. MSat says:

    This judge is my new BFF.

  4. Andie says:

    The fact that Sir Paul married an ex prozzie without a pre-nup is hysterical to me, go for it Heather – you are an utter mentalist! I would love to be a fly on the wall at Stella’s house right now.

  5. headache says:

    I believe it’s been said there are no prenups in england.

    She is such a harpy. You know Paul wakes up every day wondering how he could have allowed such a screw to be the mother of his child.

  6. Scott F says:

    Can someone from the UK please answer a quick question for me? My stepfather teaches in London, and I know our legal systems are different, but how exactly did she get away with all that crap?

    The Judge all but came out and said she lied in open court, harassed other parties in the court room, and physically assaulted the opposing counsel. Do you guys not have contempt of court in civil cases, or is it just that much harder to piss off a British judge? I can almost hear it now.

    “Ms. Mills, would you please retake your seat, and stop throwing feces at the gallery!”

  7. OKgirl says:

    for a judge to make those kind of comments is unprofessional, unethical and biased.

    the real shame is this judge. not heather mills. says alot about how much the case was weighed in favor that she got a decent settlement after hearing the testimony in a biased courtroom.

    but england is VERY archaic and still very much aristocratic. they favor ANYONE with a title over a “commoner”. lest you forget, the UK just can’t rid themselves of their colonialist, classist ways.

  8. Sam says:

    If i had been the Judge in the case when she poured the water over Paul’s lawyer’s head i would have held heather mills in contempt, and asked the prosecutors to file assault charges.

  9. Syko says:

    I know, GoodSam! I was shocked when I read about it and kept saying to myself “surely not in court? surely not right there in the courtroom?” And even more shocked when all she got was a lecture. They should have locked her up!

    I suppose it would be going too far to throw away the key. Anyway, they don’t want her either. They’re trying to send her here. Some sort of payback for the Revolutionary War, the Boston Tea Party and the War of 1812.

  10. geronimo says:

    They absolutely do have contempt of court in civil cases but I would hazard a guess here that everyone concerned had had enough and realised they were dealing with a degree of lunacy and delusionment above and beyond anything they had expected.

    I’m sure they wanted the case over and done with and to get as far away from HM as is humanly possible. All it would have done is give HM and her persecution complex another opportunity to present herself as the poor victim and would have prolonged this case even further. And I doubt anyone concerned wanted that. After reading the judgement, who in their right minds would?

  11. Kait says:

    Such an ugly, greedy, horrible woman. I feel bad for her daughter – someday when she reads the press coverage from her parents divorce all kinds of light bulbs will click on. She’ll realize she’s not the only one who thinks her mom is a whack job.

  12. Rreedy says:

    Now maybe Paul can have some peace…can you BELIEVE this mouthy tramp? She can move to the U.S. but has little chance of making a happy life for herself HERE or ANYWHERE!

    I have seen greed before, but nothing compares with THIS! What goes around comes around, Heather!

  13. mollination says:

    she really is delusional. Throwing water on someone out of impulse and rage? Why does she get custody of that little girl????

  14. Anonymous says:

    I like Heather because she always speaks her mind.

  15. mollination says:

    Yes, and in such an effective and civil manner, anonymous.

  16. frewt says:

    I finally concede that this woman is an unstable, irrational bitch who doesn’t know the first thing about being mature and gracious. She and Naomi Campbell should join forces.

    Did anybody else catch the bizarre court jester type suit she was wearing? Ugh

  17. Randi says:

    I agree with OKgirl in terms of the judge’s behavior. Still, Heather shot herself in the foot (or peg leg) by taking on Paul without legal counsel, and I can’t believe she got away with the water stunt.

  18. Joyce says:

    I guess it’s a consequence of the falling dollar that Ms. Mills is coming to the U.S. Her money will buy more here, unfortunately. I’d like to buy that judge a drink.

  19. Cmora says:

    I like people who DON’T always speak their minds!

  20. headache says:

    Agreed. Every once in a while, people just need to keep their mouths shut.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Heather is a nutter. She should learn to close mouth and graciously accept her millions.

  22. xiaoecho says:

    OK OK after reading the judges remarks I concede Heather looks like a nutter. Still hate ‘elevator music’ Paul though

  23. Dandilion says:

    I would like to think that for the rest of her life she will never, ever, be 100% certain that any man showing “interest” doesn’t want to be with her for just the money. Karma?

  24. Linda says:

    Thats just a rumor. Trust me I know!!! That new show on E! Pop fiction !!! Its freakn hilarious. Ashton Kutcher is a genius punking the paparazzi.. so great!! Last sunday Eva Longoria and Mario Lopez made it look like they were dating or something and the pap fell for it.They went crazy over it. This show is freakn awsome.Next Sunday is gnna be even better. Heres those links you wanted. Tell me what you think.



  25. Rreedy says:

    The conversation isn’t about your “freakin’ good Pop Show.” Find another forum.

  26. aykt says: