Home

Mr Justice Bennett :

1.                  This final hearing concerns the application by Ms Heather Mills/Lady McCartney (“the wife”) for financial provision against Sir Paul McCartney (“the husband”).

2.                  The hearing took place over six days between 11 and 18 February 2008.  The wife represented herself assisted, with my permission, by three Mckenzie Friends, namely her sister, Fiona Mills, Mr David Rosen, a solicitor-advocate, and Mr Michael Shilub, an American attorney.  The husband was represented by Mr Nicholas Mostyn QC and Mr Timothy Bishop, instructed by Payne Hicks Beach.

3.                  The battle lines are set out in the open offer made by each party prior to the start of the final hearing.  In her letter of 31 January 2008 the wife computes her reasonable needs for herself and Beatrice at £3,250,000 p.a. which amounts on a Duxbury capitalised basis to £99,480,000.  She seeks 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 seeks between £8m and £12.5m for a home in London, £3m 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 in favour of the husband over her sister’s (Fiona) Hove property, transfer of property order re a Southampton property owned by the husband in which Sonya Mills lives, and relief in respect of chattels.  Further, the wife asks 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 amounts to about £125m.  She also seeks an order for costs.

4.                  By letter of 6 February 2008 Messrs Payne Hicks Beach set out the husband’s position.  Overall the wife should exit the proceedings with total assets of £15m (after a deduction for conduct) made up as follows. Sonya Mills’ home and the mortgage on Fiona’s home should be transferred to the wife at a combined value of £683,000; Angel’s Rest (which has now been valued at £2m); the net value of Pean’s Wood; the value of funds that either the wife has or should have; and a balancing lump sum provided certain art is returned to the husband.  Further, the husband would meet the reasonable cost of security for the wife and for their child, Beatrice, for 2 years not exceeding £150,000 p.a.  For Beatrice, the husband would pay periodical payments at £35,000 p.a. and for a nanny not to exceed £25,000 p.a.  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 will discharge the school fees, uniform and reasonable extras, and health insurance premiums.  Proposals were made as to chattels.  There would be no order as to costs.

5.                  Both parties made it clear that each wants a clean break both under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (as amended) and under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Defendants) Act 1975.

6.                  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.  They have one child, Beatrice born on 28 October 2003 who is therefore now 4 years old.

7.                  No decree nisi has yet been pronounced, for the following reasons.  On 17 July 2006 the husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of the wife’s unreasonable behaviour.  On 13 October 2006 the wife filed an Answer denying the husband’s allegation of unreasonable behaviour and cross-praying for divorce on the grounds of the husband’s unreasonable behaviour.  On 28 February 2007 the suit, the ancillary relief proceedings and an application by the wife for maintenance pending suit came before me.  I shall return to this hearing later in the judgment.  Suffice it to say for the moment that at my prompting the parties agreed to stay their divorce proceedings and on or after 1 May 2008, by which time would have been separated for 2 years, to one party presenting a fresh petition for divorce based on the 2 years separation and to the other consenting to a divorce.  So, at a hearing arranged for 12 May I hope to be able to pronounce a decree nisi of divorce.

8.                  The husband’s case on financial provision for the wife is summarised at paragraph 9 of the opening note of Mr Mostyn QC as follows:

“We submit that fundamentally this is a straightforward case.  Because of H’s enormous pre-marital wealth and because of the brief duration of this marriage W’s claim should be determined by reference to the principle of need alone.  This is not a case where the principle of sharing of the “marital acquest” is engaged at all.  Nor is it a case where the principle of compensation will arise.  W’s needs fall to be fairly assessed, not predominantly by reference to the standard of living during the marriage.  W’s award should be reduced to reflect her post-separation misconduct.  That misconduct is based on three distinct episodes as explained in our Conduct Note.”

9.                  The wife’s case cannot be so succinctly summarised.  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 £2m and £3m.  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 £800m and that she is entitled to share in the “marital acquest”.  Finally, she asserts that throughout their marriage and after their separation the husband behaved in such a way that it would be inequitable to disregard and that his conduct should be reflected in the award.

10.              During the course of this judgment I shall have to determine certain matters of fact.

11.              The major factual issues as to the history of their relationship that I must determine are these.  First, at the time the parties met, was the wife a wealthy and independent person?  This is linked to the third issue.  Second, did the parties cohabit from March 2000 or from the date of the marriage?  The relevance of this issue is to the length of their relationship and to the further issue of “marital acquest”. Third, did the husband constrict the wife’s career after cohabitation (whether at March 2000 or June 2002)?  This is relevant to the issue of “compensation” for an allegedly lost or restricted career of the wife.

12.              I shall also have to determine issues of fact concerning the husband’s and the wife’s assets, the wife’s proposed income needs, the wife’s expenditure between October 2006 and December 2007, and the wife’s earning capacity.

13.              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.

14.              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.  She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination.

15.              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.

16.              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.

17.              The husband’s background needs little exposition.  He is, and has been for many years, a world famous musician, composer and singer.  He is an icon to millions of people.  He married Linda, who had a daughter from her first marriage, whom the husband subsequently adopted.  He and Linda had 3 children, Mary, Stella and James.  In 1998 Linda died of cancer.  I have no doubt that he was deeply upset by her death.  He is now 65 years old.

18.              The wife, who is now 40 years old, spent much of her childhood in Northumberland.  She seems to have had a rather troubled childhood.  When she was 14 years old she had to move to live with her mother in London.  She left her mother’s home aged 15.  She took a number of jobs.

19.              When she was 17 years old she started modelling.  After a modelling competition she got a job presenting a TV series.  More modelling jobs followed.  When she was 20 years old (1988) she went to live and work in Paris.

20.              In 1989 she married.  The union was childless.  She and her former husband ultimately divorced.  She learned to ski and became an instructor.  She learned to ski in Slovenia.

21.              During the crisis that affected the old Yugoslavia the wife became appalled by the fighting and the terrible injuries suffered particularly by the civilian population.  She became heavily involved in charitable works joining convoys of trucks taking food and clothing to Croatia.  She became very conscious of the terrible injuries inflicted by landmines.  She saw a number of people who had lost limbs, particularly legs.

22.              In 1993 her trips to Croatia diminished as her modelling career in the UK began to prosper.  At paragraph 26 of her affidavit of 30 January 2008 she says:

“In early 1993 my trips to Croatia became less and less frequent, as my modelling career in the UK began to take off.  I got work modelling all over the world including in the Bahamas, Malaysia, America and the Middle East.  I won lucrative contracts with Marks and Spencers, River Island and Slix, the swimwear company ….   I believe I was earning at that time in the region of £200,000 per annum.  I do not have my tax returns although I did request the same from the Inland Revenue who informed me by letter that they are not available….”

23.              On 8 August 1993 she was on a zebra crossing in London and was unfortunately hit by a police motorcyclist.  Her left foot was severed above the ankle.  She suffered head injuries, cracked ribs, a punctured long and multiple fractures of the pelvis.  Her left leg was amputated 6 inches below the knee.  In October 1993 she underwent another operation which shortened her leg still further but still below the knee.

24.              The wife says that, following media enquiries, she gave interviews and earned about £180,000 in 10 days.  She wrote a book “Out on a limb”, the proceeds of which were donated to transport artificial limbs to Croatia.  She says that thereafter she did much public speaking and her earnings were in the range of £300,000 per annum.

25.              She became involved in fundraising for a number of charities – see in particular her description at paragraph 32 of her affidavit.  She continued to do an enormous amount of charitable work in particular being involved in transporting artificial limbs to Croatia.  She was by now, she says, an established public speaker.

26.              At paragraph 45-47 of her affidavit she says:

“After my accident in 1993, I raised money through public speaking in aid of charities.  I became one of the top 10 female speakers in Europe.  Between 1993 and 1999 when I met Paul my income spiralled for example in 1997 I had a modelling contract for £750,000; I wrote, with a ghost writer, a best selling autobiography called Out on a Limb and in the year prior to marrying Paul I earned $1,000,000 for 14 days work.  In order to support myself and to help with my charity work, I did a lot of television presenting, for example, Good Morning with Anne & Nick, Keanu Reeves interview, BBC TVAM, Chill Out With Heather series (where I interviewed a number of well known people), The Holiday programme, Wish You Were Here, Travelogue, First Say (after Panorama show), radio hosting, The General hospital, Richard and Judy, etc etc the list is endless.  I also continued modelling.  I would contribute a lot of my earnings to charity….

Before I met Paul in 1999, examples of my work included:

a.       That’s Esther Show with Esther Ranzten – I was a co-presenter, making and presenting reports.  I did approximately 25 programmes focusing on the struggles of amputees, and the quality of services available to them, as well as other issues such as chip pan fires, police sirens, male nannies, safe children’s playgrounds, waste pickers in Cambodia;

b.      Panorama – I worked as a senior producer making programmes called ‘First Say’ concerning issues such as Clinton’s impeachment, European working time directive and Prince Charles 50^th birthday;  This was the flagship’s commission for the digital channel ‘Choice’ on the BBC.  My role involved producing, researching scripting, directing and presenting.

c.       Travel programmes – I was a presenter on Summer Holiday, Wish You Were Here and Travelog;

d.      The General – I was a presenter on this programme based in Southampton General Hospital which was broadcast live five days a week;

e.       Pebblemill – Chill Out with Heather series and Croatian documentary

As mentioned previously, before I met Paul, I was speaking all over Europe and was considered one of the top ten female public speakers in Europe.  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 ….”

27.              She thus asserted at paragraph 48:

“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.”

28.              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.  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.

29.              The penthouse flat in Denman Street was not worth £500,000 in 1999.  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.

30.              During her cross-examination she asserted for the first time that in addition to property assets she had £2m-£3m in the bank.  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.

31.              The first tax return that the wife has been able to produce is for the year ending 5 April 1999.  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.

32.              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.  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.  In her Answers to a Questionnaire of 6 February 2007 the wife, having been asked to set out in a schedule the income earned by her and sent direct to charities for the years 1997 and 2000 inclusive, 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 £2m-£3m in the bank in 1999.

33.              The wife accepted that had she had £2m to £3m in the bank in 1999 she is most likely to have put such a sum into an account earning interest.  But the tax returns do not disclose any bank interest earned or only very small sums which are not consistent with holding £2m-£3m in a bank or banks.  Moreover her tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all.

34.              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 £2m-£3m in her bank account if such existed.  However 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 wife agreed to repay the loan at £1000 per month from 1 July 2001 for a period of 25 years.  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 £2m-£3m 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.

35.              By May 2002 the loan was “discharged”.  She paid the monthly £1000, and sold Cross Street and according to the husband paid off about £348,000 of the loan from a combination of the net proceeds of sale of Cross Street and monies from a modelling contract.

36.              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”.

37.              The next matter to be decided is whether the wife and the husband began cohabitating in March 2000 or, as the husband asserts, their committed relationship began upon marriage.  It is common ground they met in May 1999 at the Pride of Britain Awards.  He accepts he was immediately attracted to her.  He later telephoned her and they began meeting.  He made a donation to her charity of £150,000 in July.  It is at that point the wife says they began dating.  There is no dispute about that.

38.              In August the husband took the wife to New York and showed her his holiday house at 11, Pintail, on Long Island which he had purchased in December 1998.  The wife says that after that thereafter things started to get serious and they saw more and more of each other.  By September 1999 they were spending 5 nights a week together, at hotels and thereafter at the husband’s property called “The Forecastle” but usually referred to as “Lizzie”, in Rye, which is a 3 bedroom cottage.  In November 1999 the wife met the husband’s children by Linda.  Later he introduced her to his adopted daughter, who was Linda’s daughter from her first marriage.

39.              In January 2000 he took her on holiday to the Turks and Caicos Islands.  On their return they continued to spend up to 5 nights a week at Lizzie.

40.              In early March 2000 the wife gave up her property in Hampshire and moved to a property in Cross Street, Brighton to be nearer the husband.  “This was around the time that Paul and I decided to move in together” (paragraph 20 of her affidavit of 7 February 2007 in relation to the parties’ pre-marital relationship).  It is said that the husband suggested trying to live together.  From that point on the husband and she were only apart if one of them was abroad.  They lived by then mostly in “Lizzie”, a property of the husband in Rye or in the husband’s property at 7, Cavendish Avenue in London.

41.              The Christmas of 2000 was spent at Lizzie.  In January 2001 they went for a whole month to India and whilst in Jaipur the husband “secretly” bought a sapphire and diamond engagement ring for the wife.

42.              During 2000 and 2001 the husband was making his album “Driving Rain” and much of the recording was done in Los Angeles.  The husband’s travel agent, Mike Whalley found a property to rent at 9536 Heather Road in Beverley Hills.

43.              In March 2001 the husband purchased that property and transferred it into Mr Whalley’s name “temporarily for tax purposes, but that it would soon be transferred to me” (paragraph 32).  It was never transferred into her name.

44.              In February 2001 the wife sold her flat in Denman Street and in May 2001 purchased Angel’s Rest.  Cross Street was sold.  But the wife says that she and the husband continued to live in Lizzie and visited Angel’s Rest “only on occasion (sic)” (paragraph 33).

45.              On 22 July 2001 the parties became engaged.  The wife was given the ring that the husband had bought in India.  In November 2001 the husband gave her a joint Coutts credit card.

46.              On 14 June 2002 they were married.  Their living arrangements remained the same.  But in 2002 they began building “The Cabin” – a Norwegian style log cabin near the lake on the husband’s estate of about 1500 acres at Peasmarsh in East Sussex.

47.              The husband’s evidence is contained in his affidavit of 25 January 2007.  His case, broadly, is that they dated during 1999, 2000, 2001, became engaged in July 2001 and married in June 2002, whereupon the nature of their relationship changed.

48.              The husband says that the wife did not give up her Hampshire property to live with him, because in March 2000, she bought Cross Street in Brighton.  Furthermore having purchased Angel’s Rest in May 2001 she decorated, furnished and insured it.  He asserts that Angel’s Rest was the wife’s primary home.

49.              After their engagement their relationship did “become more formal and settled, but the living arrangements did not change very significantly”.  They did not live as husband and wife.

50.              After the marriage the nature of their relationship changed.  At paragraph 17 of his January 2007 affidavit he said:

“After our marriage, the nature of our relationship to my mind, changed significantly.  I was and remain fairly old-fashioned about marriage.  We decided upon a proper wedding for that reason – I did not want any suggestion that we were in any way furtive or ashamed about our marriage.  I believed it was for life and that it put everything on a very different footing.  I drew up a Will to include Heather which I executed on 5 June 2002.  We stopped using contraception the night we were married.  There was never any question of us doing so before the wedding.  Heather had one miscarriage before Beatrice was conceived in the first year of our marriage.  Neither of us contemplated children without marriage.”

51.              Then they both set their minds to building the Cabin as their home.

52.              In my judgment, in assessing this issue, the background is of importance.  The husband’s wife, Linda, had died in 1998.  Their marriage endured for some 30 years.  Repeatedly in his evidence the husband described how even during his relationship with the wife in 1999 to 2002 he was grieving for Linda.  I have no doubt the husband found the wife very attractive.  But equally I have no doubt that he was still very emotionally tied to Linda.

53.              It is not without significance that until the husband married the wife he wore the wedding ring given to him by Linda.  Upon being married to the wife he removed it and it was replaced by a ring given to him by the wife.

54.              The wife for her part must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband.  I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-belief.  The objective facts simply do not support her case.

55.              Cohabitation, moving seamlessly into and beyond marriage, normally involves in my judgment, a mutual commitment by two parties to make their lives together both in emotional and practical terms.  Cohabitation is normally but not necessarily in one location.  There is often a pooling of resources, both in money and property terms.   Loans between cohabitants may be forgiven.

56.              Thus one might have expected that had the parties begun cohabitation in March 2000 the wife, having disposed of the Hampshire property, would not then have acquired another one, i.e. Cross Street.  Furthermore, one would not expect a cohabitant having sold one property to buy another (Angel’s Rest), refurbish, decorate and insure it.  But what, to my mind, is so compelling is that in order to purchase Angel’s Rest the wife entered into a formal, written, loan agreement in May 2001 under which she borrowed from the husband’s Company, MPL, £800,000, agreed to repay the loan at £1000 per month, and did in fact pay MPL £1000 per month.  In my judgment such a financial arrangement is hardly consistent with a mutual commitment to make their lives together.  Moreover, it must be remembered that, as the husband said in evidence, there was a considerable volatility in their relationship.  There were good times, there were bad times, and the relationship always left in the husband’s mind a question whether he and the wife were going to be ultimately right for each other.

57.              I do not accept the wife’s case that the property in Heather Road in Beverly Hills was purchased for her.  The husband’s explanation for putting it into Mr Whalley’s name is the more credible, namely to disguise the fact that the husband had bought it.  He told me that when a star buys a house in Beverley Hills it goes onto a map showing where the stars live.  The husband did not want unwelcome and unwanted visits.  The husband and wife, the husband accepted, did call it “Heather House” because it was in Heather Road just as they called Cavendish Avenue “Cavendish”.  I saw a DVD in which the wife could be seen in the property saying that “Heather House” was “my house” in rather a jocular way (apparently without contradiction by the husband) but that was, I find, wishful thinking on her part.  I find that the husband never said to her that it was her house or that he would put it in her name.  He accepted that later on in the marriage that the wife said to him that she wanted it (and other of the husband’s properties) to be transferred into her name but that was at a stage when the marriage was not good.

58.              Furthermore, it is to be noted that, as I have said, in May 2001 the husband lent the wife £800,000 to buy Angel’s Rest. A loan of £800,000 to the wife in May 2001 does not support the concept of a gift to the wife of a property in March 2001 worth about $4m.

59.              On 11 May 2007 in proceedings before the Senior District Judge involving Beatrice the wife made a statement.  The wife wanted Beatrice to live and be based in Brighton, and be educated at a Brighton preparatory school.  At paragraph 3.3 of her statement she said: 

“Beatrice has a family history in Brighton ….  I often visited the area as a child and as an adult lived here before I married Beatrice’s father ….”  (emphasis supplied)

60.              This statement, adopted by her in her evidence to the Senior District Judge in June 2007, accords with what she wrote in her book “A Single Step” published in 2002:

“Living on my own in a great big echoing barn, I started to get quite scared … Perhaps, I thought, I could find a new, secret address, where I could go to ground.  I found a small house quite quickly.  It was near the coast, a lot closer to Paul’s home, and in a part of the world I loved.”

61.              Finally, I find that there was no intermingling of finances save that in November 2001 the wife became a card holder in the husband’s bank account.  The husband did not give to the wife any allowance until marriage.

62.              I am prepared to accept that the wife and the husband from 1999 to the date of their marriage spent many, many nights together, holidayed together and became engaged.  They had a very close relationship.  But that does not, in my judgment, in the circumstances of this case, equate with a settled, committed relationship moving seamlessly into marriage.

63.              Upon marriage their relationship did indeed change and became a committed relationship, as described by the husband in evidence and in his letter to the wife of 5 June 2002.  They drew up plans for and constructed their matrimonial home at the Cabin.  They had a child.  The loan was discharged.  From April 2003 the wife received an annual allowance of £360,000 payable quarterly.  He made cash gifts to her of £250,000 in December 2002 and again in December 2003.  The husband made a will to include the wife.  To my mind all this illustrates a very different kind of relationship after marriage compared to before it.

64.              Accordingly, I reject the wife’s case on this issue.  Thus, their true and settled relationship lasted from marriage (June 2002) and not from March 2000.

65.              The nub of the wife’s case as to compensation is contained in paragraphs 49 and 50 of her affidavit of 30 January 2008:

“Even after we were married I continued to use my own money to live.  Paul repeatedly told me that he would make sure that I was financially secure, should my money run out.  My income stream and my savings did start to run out drastically.  I was no longer able to support my standard of living as I had substantially reduced my workload in order to spend time with Paul and to support him and his children emotionally.  My ability to earn the same level of income I had been earning diminished once my relationship with Paul became serious.

Countless lucrative business opportunities were made to me once Paul and I married.  Sadly, Paul advised against 99% of all of them.  He stated that they were only interested in me because of his name and that I should just stick to charity work and he would take car of me.  When I was asked to design clothes, create a food line, write books, make a video, write music or do photography, Paul would almost always state something like “Oh no you can’t do that, Stella does that or Mary does that or Heather (his adopted daughter) used to do that or Linda did that.” even though I had been involved with fashion and modelling for years.  If I had been free to pursue my TV career, especially in the US, then I believe, and have been told by other professionals, I would have made millions.  Paul would not allow me to work in the US.  For example he would not allow me to work on the Larry King show.  He would tell me “we won’t be living there and you would be a bad mother if you worked.”  Therefore, Paul made it impossible for me to pursue a career in the U.S.  Shortly after telling me I would be a “bad mother” if I worked, Paul booked a 3 month US tour dragging Beatrice and me around America.  If we had been able to base ourselves in one place I would have been able to accept the hosting of some of the Larry King shows or to do something to further my career.  I believe now that Paul’s reason for refusing to support me in doing something career wise was his fear of losing my undivided attention.  He also needed to be the centre of attention at all times.”

66.              I have already referred to the wife’s tax return for the tax years 1999 – 2002.  I shall now set out the gross turnover and net profit for the tax years ending on 5 April 2003 – 2006 inclusive.  The figures are respectively, £658,000 and £541,500; £41,266 and £6,340; £53,657 and £21,669; and £128,000 and £92,500.  By way of explanation the substantial figures for the year ending 5 April 2003 are in respect of a modelling contract with INC in respect of clothes from which earned the wife about $1m.  The figures for 2004 must take account of the wife’s pregnancy and Beatrice’s birth.

67.              The wife was therefore constrained to accept that, if the overall period 1999 to 2006 is considered solely looking at her tax returns, her income improved during the relationship with the husband.

68.              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 £1m but that the husband would not allow her to undertake to do it.  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.

69.              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”.

70.              A further illustration of the expansion rather than contraction of her career is her appearances on the Larry King Show.  The wife accepted in her cross-examination that prior to her relationship with the husband she had never appeared on his show.  Her appearances were, as set out by the husband in his affidavit of 8 January 2008, on 29 July 2001 with the husband after their engagement to talk about Adopt A Minefield charity, on 30 July 2002 to promote her book “A Single Step”, on 22 September 2003 to discuss her pregnancy, on 17 August 2004 to discuss land mines, and with the husband in March 2006 in relation to their trip to Canada for an appeal against seal clubbing.  Furthermore, I accept the husband’s evidence that in April 2004 he found a big name, Paul Newman, for her to interview on the Larry King Show as guest presenter.

71.              At paragraph 52 of her affidavit of 30 January 2008 the wife says that Larry King intended her to host more shows but the husband “put a stop to my dream of hosting the biggest TV show in the world and what would have been a huge and lucrative career move for me”.  The wife says that the husband allowed her to do one show but no more as otherwise she would be a “bad” mother.  She told me in evidence that in April 2004 she had been offered a verbal contract to guest present the shows 2 or 3 days per week.

72.              The husband’s evidence to me was that he had never said that the wife was/would be a bad mother.  He told me that she has always been a good mother.  The wife told him she had been offered a more permanent job co-hosting the Larry King Show.  The husband was sceptical because the wife had received bad reviews for her interview of Paul Newman.  However he agreed to go to the US for 3 months to see how things went.  He says he believed he owed it to the wife as she had accompanied him on his last US tour.  But they were both of the same mind that they, for Beatrice’s sake, did not wish to relocate to Los Angeles.  Thereafter the wife did not mention the subject again.  The wife in her cross-examination did not accept this account.

73.              I am prepared to assume in the wife’s favour that Larry King did float the idea of the wife doing further interviews on his show.  But I doubt it got any further than that.  I do not accept the wife’s evidence that she was actually offered a contract.  The idea was discussed between the wife and the husband.  Beatrice was then about 6 months old.  This was the wife’s first and only child.  Her birth must have brought about a change in the outlook of the wife and husband, for the welfare of Beatrice to both of them was, and still is, of the very greatest importance.  I think the husband was, very understandably, reluctant about what would have been a relocation to Los Angeles and the likelihood is that he proposed a sort of temporary solution.  Thereafter the wife, having no doubt considered it all carefully with Beatrice’s welfare in mind, dropped the subject.

74.              There are other examples, in my judgment, which, contrary to the wife’s case, show that the husband was supportive of, or furthered, the wife’s career.  In 2005, at a time when the marriage may have been faltering, the wife took part in a mini tour in the USA of public speaking with Smart Talk Women’s Lecture Series.  Mr Benia, the owner or controlling influence in that organisation, speaks in his statement of 24 November 2006 (which was admitted into evidence on behalf of the wife unchallenged) of the wife’s tour being an “outstanding success”.  However Smart Talk was unable to offer the wife more dates for the 2006 season as Mr Benia found that the wife “was unable to commit in advance to future Smart Talk dates”.  Mr Benia says that the wife lost a lot of business not just with his, but other, organisations, basically because she was not accessible.  He could not get a commitment from the wife for dates nor speedy responses he needed.

75.              The wife blames the husband for her failure to commit.  He was restrictive and discouraged her.  The husband’s evidence is that the wife’s unreliability was not caused by him.  He was unable to explain why the wife did not commit herself when offered dates by Mr Benia.  The husband, in my judgment, gave compelling evidence that no-one tells the wife what to do.  This accords with his written evidence that the wife is very strong willed.  Indeed watching the wife give evidence and present her case she came across to me as strong willed and very determined.  I have no doubt that had the wife really wanted to contract for dates through Mr Benia she would have done it and the husband would not have stood in her way.

76.              The evidence in relation to McDonald’s illustrates much the same story as Smart Talk.  The wife and representatives from McDonald’s met in late November 2005 and early 2006 to discuss McDonald’s selling vegetarian dishes.  McDonald’s approached her because of her association with “select animal welfare organisations” (according to the November 2006 statement of Michael Donahue, who at that time was responsible for McDonald’s USA external relations as a Vice-President).  The wife was being reviewed as a potential partner with McDonald’s in this matter.  Mr Donahue found her to be “an ideal candidate”.  However, after several meetings Mr Donahue found that, although the wife illustrated a personal commitment to the project, he and his colleagues often experienced problems due to her “personal inability to be as accessible as was necessary”.  Arranging meetings became difficult.  The whole project then stalled.

77.              The husband told me that the wife’s association with animal welfare organisations came about because he had long been concerned with animal welfare and had introduced the wife to several such organisations including to VIVA in 2005, which became the wife’s main, animal charitable cause.  Thus his introductions of the wife to these organisations were, I find, instrumental in McDonald’s engaging in serious, business discussions with the wife in late 2005 and early 2006.

78.              Again there is a conflict between wife and husband over who is to blame for the stalling of this project.  As with Smart Talk, I find that, had the wife really intended to carry the McDonald’s project through, she would have done so and would not have taken “no” from the husband for an answer.

79.              The wife says that the husband “turned down many opportunities to help my charities” (paragraph 55 of her affidavit of 30 January 2008) and that his “refusal to commit” made any of his appearances on behalf of a charity much less effective.  Furthermore (paragraph 56) the husband often promised to make financial contributions to charities but later refused to follow it through.

80.              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.  In April 2000 the husband’s sister-in-law effectively introduced her to “Adopt a Minefield” (“AAM”).  This charity became one of the wife’s principle charitable concerns.  The wife accepted in her cross-examination that in respect of the husband’s direct and indirect contribution to AAM between January 2001 and late 2005 the husband contributed approximately £3,425,000.

81.              During his “Back in the World” Tour in 2002 the husband wore T shirts with “No more landmines” on them which raised a further £100,000 for AAM.

82.              In February 2003 the husband performed at the 50^th birthday party of the husband of the producer of the Larry King Show in return for a donation of $1m from that person to AAM.

83.              In the summer of 2005 the husband introduced the wife to VIVA, to where the wife donated her earning from Dancing with the Stars in the spring of 2007.

84.              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.

85.              I now turn to the wife’s case of contribution.

86.              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 10 years time she will be 14 years old, the wife will be 50 years old and the husband 75 years old.  When Beatrice achieves adulthood the wife will be 54 years old and the husband 79 years old.  In my judgment it is likely that Beatrice, a bright and intelligent child, will go through tertiary education.  When she finishes university say at the age of 22, the mother will be 58 years old and the father 83 years old.  What I think this means is that, as Beatrice grows up, it is likely that the contribution made by the wife to Beatrice’s welfare is likely to become more demanding.  The husband will by then be growing older and may look more to the wife to bear the brunt of the emotional and psychological development of Beatrice.  The husband, if I may put it like this, may well wish to take things rather more quietly, although I have absolutely no doubt that his love and devotion for Beatrice will be as strong, if not stronger, as it is now.

87.              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”. 

88.              She undertook the arrangements for furnishing, renovating and maintaining 7 Cavendish Avenue, 41 West 54^th Street in New York, 11 Pintail and “Heather House”.  In respect of the Cabin the construction began in 2002 and was completed in February 2004.  The works which the wife says that she arranged are set out in paragraph 90 of her affidavit of 30 January 2008.  It was a two bedroom property.  In particular it was she who suggested that it should be built in the style of a Norwegian log cabin.

89.              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.

90.              The husband went on tour as follows.  Between April and May 2002 he undertook 27 concerts in the USA.  The wife came to them all.  Between September 2002 and October 2002 he undertook 23 concerts in the USA at all of which the wife was present.