Mills-McCartney judgment reveals all

  • Print
  • Comments (8)

Readers' comments (8)

  • Mills/McCartney

    The judgment in McCartney makes fascinating reading. For the family lawyers there is useful guidance as to how to approach cases of great wealth acquired before a relatively short marriage. For the tabloids there is plenty of detail about the marriage and its breakdown and the way in which Lady McCartney conducted herself in the course of the proceedings which will make fabulous copy. While the judge clearly tried to be fair and even handed, Lady McCartney comes out of this very badly indeed.

    For those of us involved in divorce work, the judge has made it clear that it is inappropriate to approach cases like this on the basis of sharing of family assets, which is the usual approach in most cases today. Instead he said that he would look at the Wife's needs, albeit generously interpreted. However, in assessing the Wife's needs he found that she had exaggerated her claims to such an extent that it was impossible to work out what she really needed and therefore he had pruned her budget dramatically.

    In principle this decision is good news for wealthy husbands, but given the truly exceptional nature of the case and the sums involved it remains to be seen to what extent the courts will follow this precedent in the more usual cases which come before them on a daily basis.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mills McCartney

    The McCartney divorce holds the public interest not because it is a landmark divorce case but because millions are at stake, one party is a national icon and the other party's outspokenness clearly provides titillating reading.
    McCartney, whilst not landmark, is useful to reinforce a couple of messages:
    Firstly if you cannot agree a settlement then one will be agreed for you - and one that neither of you may be happy with.
    Secondly, divorce can be very expensive - so try to keep the costs down. So consider the collaborative approach - where you can agree to work out a settlement that's right for you both.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mills/McCartney divorce

    This is a vindication for Paul McCartney as Heather Mills was seeking far in excess of this sum from the Court and I believe it is less then she was offered by him to settle in an amicable fashion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mills/McCartney

    Heather Mills has announced she is to appeal against the publication of the judgment (rather than the financial order) on the issue of privacy. As many of the details of the judgment were announced by Ms Mills outside the court today, one wonders how effective that application may be. However that point raises the issue of the privacy for parties in family proceedings. In the McCartney case, both parties are well known public figures, although that does not mean that they should be denied their privacy. In other high profile cases, such as Charman, and especially the Miller case in 2006, the parties were not public figures but were subject to intense media attention.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mills appeal

    We are left with a picture of a wife whose ambitions in the context of this case appear to have first ballooned and then been somewhat rudely punctured, and of a husband who, one speculates, may regret the absence of a pre-nuptial agreement. It cannot be guaranteed that such an agreement would have prevented what seems to have been a painful experience, but it really would have helped.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Paul McCartney & Heather Mills

    It seems to me that this judgment demonstrates compellingly that not even the most civilised justice system on the planet can compensate for irrationality on the part of a litigant in person. More than in any other emotionally-charged dispute, lawyers (especially when well advised by a forensic accountant) play a vital role in divorce cases. Collaborative solutions to reaching amicable financial settlements are most welcome, but they cannot be expected to work effectively in circumstances where it is suspected that less than full disclosure has been made of financial means or where irrationality interferes with the behaviour, expectations and emotions of one or both parties. The ultimate objective in divorce settlements must to to achieve fairness whilst minimising anxiety for both parties and, where children are involved, maximising the opportunities for the divorcing couple to enjoy some form of constructive relationship thereafter. Achieving this objective requires straight forwardness on behalf of both parties from the outset.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mills/McCartney

    If this case is to be used as a precedent for future divorce cases, well men buckle-up, you are about lose it all.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Is Heather a "gold digger"??

    I heard Heather Mills McCartney (at the time) talk to ABC's Barbara Walters, in which she told Ms. Walters that she wished Paul wasn't 'so famous'. I find that comment absolutely remarkable. It's as if she didn't know anything about him, who he was - a world renown singer/musician - and all of a sudden, she was thrust into a world for which she was little prepared.

    That's like being married to Royalty and not being happy with media attention. It comes with the territory. I believe Justice Bennett was right in his overall assessment of her behaviour while in court. It's not for no reason he considered her testimony inconsistent. She couldn't even fill in the blanks. And not being able to provide documentary proof of financial records....that's so Heather! I recall Ms. Walters telling her co-hosts and viewers alike, that prior to her interviewing Heather for the second time, she was rather demanding behind the scenes. That about sums up her character. Besides, whom did Heather think she was getting involved with and marrying, someone unknown??!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (8)