http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00020/divorcejudgement_20393a.pdfYes i'm bored at work so i'm reading the Approved Divorce Judgement, and its pretty funny.
Heather claims she had £3 million in the bank prior to meeting Sir Paul, yet has no evidance to prove this, and also had to take out a loan to but a £750,000 house at the same time?
She also says she was making about £300,000 per annum before the marriage, yet cannot prove this with tax returns...
"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."
Not quite eh Miss Mills?
Heres a list of my favourite quotes from the text:
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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,"
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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 email 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."
"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."
"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."
"She says she helped him write songs." // after hearing his latest album, this i truly believe...
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Nevertheless I find that the husband’s total wealth amounts to approximately £400m. I reject the wife’s case that he is worth £800m. There is absolutely no evidence at all to support that figure or any figure anywhere near it."
"In my judgment, before I come to determine the nature and extent of the wife’s assets, it is important to note that their source is very largely as a result of the husband’s generosity towards her."
"On 2 November 2005 the wife e-mailed Mr Paul Winn, MPL’s finance director, in respect of the property at Thames Reach that “the amount outstanding on the mortgage is £480,000” and “please pay it in the following account and I will deal with the closure of it”. The account was a NatWest bank account in the name of the wife. On 5 November the wife e-mailed Mr Winn that “there are 4 loans with different companies on the property totalling £480,000 …”. Mr Winn pressed for full details on each loan. In February 2006 the wife again e-mailed Mr Winn about the loans and on 28 February instructed him to pay £450,000 into her account “so that I can settle this situation”. On 1 March Mr Winn told the wife in an e-mail that he would not pay any sum “without proof that the loans exist or some protection secured on the property at Thames Reach”."
and thus...
"In her Replies to Questionnaire dated 6 February 2007, in response to a question to annotate the wife’s bank accounts showing discharge of the 4 loans and indicating the recipient of each payment, it was said “the wife did not have any loans”. Mr Mostyn put to her that that was a fraudulent attempt to extract money from the husband. I find the wife’s behaviour distinctly distasteful."
"The wife now says she feels a prisoner there, as she put it, in the middle of nowhere. I find that inconsistent with her having already spent on it £675,000 and wanting another £400,000 to put in a swimming-pool."
"To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character."
"Her evidence there that she had turned down huge amounts of work is quite inconsistent with her assertion that her earning capacity is zero."
"Nevertheless, as I have said, the wife is (or at least was) prepared to accept £50m in lieu of a claim for £125m. That, in my judgment, can mean only one of two things; either the claim by the wife for £125m is a reasonable claim, in which case the enormous drop of £75m to £50m is inexplicable, or, the claim for £125m is and was unreasonable, indeed exorbitant."
"She unwisely gave interviews in October and November 2007 which may have produced intrusion into her life by the media. But that was very largely self-inflicted."
"I accept the wife’s evidence that she has always since the age of 25 flown first class and that when she and Beatrice fly they should go first class. The husband accepted this in his evidence. But the figures given are much, much too high in every respect."
"Mr Mostyn distilled the wife’s conduct into three episodes. First, it is said on 25 June 2006 the wife illegally bugged the husband’s telephone, in particular a call between him and his daughter Stella in which Stella made very unflattering comments about the wife. It is further said the wife subsequently leaked the intercepted material to the press so as to discredit him. Second, on 17 October 2006 the wife, or someone acting on her behalf, leaked to the media some or all of the contents of her Answer and Cross-Petition which contained untrue and distorted allegations against the husband in orders to discredit him. Third, the wife has failed to abide by court orders re confidentiality. On 31 October 2007 and 1 November 2007 the wife gave several interviews to UK and US television stations in which she made many false statements about the husband and these proceedings in order to discredit him. Individually and collectively these actions, it is said, represent a deliberate attempt by the wife to ruin the husband’s reputation."
It seems to me that she tried to take from him what was not hers, and even goes as far as making things up in order to get an amount of money she is not entitled to. She also comes across as a right female dog.
