Mills receives £24.3m in McCartney divorce settlement
Payne Hicks Beach client Sir Paul McCartney is to pay estranged wife Heather Mills £24.3m in a divorce settlement determined by High Court judge Mr Justice Bennett.
The couple failed to reach an agreement in court last month, resulting in the dispute being reserved to Bennett J.
Speaking outside London's High Court, Mills said she was "glad it's over" and "it was an incredible result to secure mine and my daughter's future".
Mills sought an award of almost £125m, while McCartney proposed that she should leave the marriage with assets of £15.8m, according to a summary released by the court.
Bennett J decided McCartney should pay Mills a lump sum of £16.5m, which together with her assets of £7.8m means that she exits the marriage with total assets of £24.3m.
The lump sum of £16.5m is made up of £14m as the capitalised figure for Mills' income needs, which the judge assessed as £600,000 each year, and a sum of £2.5m to buy a property in London.
For the couple's daughter Beatrice a financial provision was made where McCartney would pay £35,000 annually as well as for her nanny and her school fees.
The total figure also includes £500,000 to finance Mills' "overspending" in the period of separation.
Bennett J also found that, including his business and assets, McCartney was worth £400m. The judge held that there was no evidence before him that McCartney's fortune was in the region of £800m as the media had previously reported.
The high court's ruling was based on Mills and McCartney cohabiting from the date of their marriage - 11 June 2002 - opposed to March 2000. The couple separated in April 2006 making the length of the marriage just under four years.
The alleged conduct of the parties were broadly taken as irrelevant, with Bennett J ruling that Mills' needs were a factor of magnetic importance.
Fiona Shackleton, a partner at Payne Hicks Beach, represented McCartney while Mills acted as a litigant in person after falling out with her lawyers at Mishcon de Reya.
Readers' comments (3)
Geraldine Morris, Hart Brown's former family department head and editor of the Family Law Journal | 17-Mar-2008 6:38 pm
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
Joshua Foreman, Chemtob Moss Forman & Talbert | 18-Mar-2008 11:18 am
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
Julia Whittle, Punter Southall Financial Management | 18-Mar-2008 11:19 am
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