- My Satellite Setup
- TalkTalk TV
- My Location
- Worksop UK
Heather Mills has been awarded a £24.3m divorce payout from Sir Paul McCartney, according to a court judgment released today.
She had sought £125m from the 60-year-old former Beatle, the judgment reveals, but received a fifth of that amount. McCartney had offered £15.8m.
The amounts were decided by a judge from the high court's family division after the pair failed to reach agreement during a week in court last month.
Mills, 40, who married McCartney in 2002, said outside the high court in London that she was "very, very, very pleased" at the sum eventually decided on.
However, in a long, sometimes rambling statement, Mills said she planned to launch an appeal tomorrow against a decision to make public Mr Justice Bennett's entire judgment, rather than just the summary released today.
Full details of the judgment have been withheld pending the appeal.
"I'm so glad it's over," an emotional Mills told reporters. "It was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and Beatrice's future and all the charities I plan on helping."
Mills said her appeal was necessary because McCartney had "insisted" the full judgment be released. She objected to this because the document included "private, secure matters" relating to the couple's daughter, Beatrice, aged four, including about her schooling.
McCartney made no comment today and his spokesman said he would not be saying anything about the ruling.
Mills, who represented herself in court last month, hit out at both the legal establishment and McCartney's own lawyer, Fiona Shackleton, who she claimed "called me many, many names".
"Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well, it's against everything that they ever wish, so when they write the judgment up they're never going to make it look in favour," she said.
The judge ruled that McCartney should pay a lump sum of £16.5m and on top of that Mills should go away with assets of £7.8m including properties.
The lump sum comprises £14m for Mills's income needs – put by the judgment at £600,000 per year – and £2.5m to buy a property in London.
The settlement involves McCartney paying for Beatrice's nanny and school fees, as well as £35,000 a year directly for her.
Mills made it plain she thought this was a derisory sum. "Beatrice only gets £35,000 a year - so obviously she's meant to travel B class while her father travels A class, but obviously I will pay for that," she said.
Much of the court case apparently centred on significantly different estimates of McCartney's wealth. McCartney's lawyers reportedly spent a good deal of their time arguing he was not nearly as rich as claimed by Mills, who insisted today he was worth £800m.
The judge found that McCartney had wealth totalling around £400m, including business assets.
An appeal by Mills threatens to draw out what has been a messy and very public case.
When the couple announced their separation in 2006, they made a public commitment to sort out the matter amicably and without public fuss, particularly for the welfare of Beatrice.
"It's been suggested that she married me for the money and there is not an ounce of truth in this," McCartney said at the time.
A few months later, relations between the pair had descended into open warfare, much of it played out in newspaper pages. That October, a leaked court document laid out lurid claims about McCartney's alleged behaviour towards his wife during their marriage.
Other claims relayed in the media included that McCartney had changed the locks at their former marital home and frozen Mills's bank account.
While McCartney declined to comment publicly throughout the divorce process, Mills on occasions let the strain show. In October last year she broke down during an interview on GMTV and said she had been driven to the brink of suicide.
"I've had worse press than a paedophile or a murderer and I've done nothing but charity for 20 years," she said.
The highest divorce payout awarded by a British court to date has been £48m in 2006 to Beverley Charman, who was married for 28 years to the insurance magnate John Charman. The sum was based on the couple's total assets of £131m.
Lawyers say agreements as high as £100m have been reached privately.
She had sought £125m from the 60-year-old former Beatle, the judgment reveals, but received a fifth of that amount. McCartney had offered £15.8m.
The amounts were decided by a judge from the high court's family division after the pair failed to reach agreement during a week in court last month.
Mills, 40, who married McCartney in 2002, said outside the high court in London that she was "very, very, very pleased" at the sum eventually decided on.
However, in a long, sometimes rambling statement, Mills said she planned to launch an appeal tomorrow against a decision to make public Mr Justice Bennett's entire judgment, rather than just the summary released today.
Full details of the judgment have been withheld pending the appeal.
"I'm so glad it's over," an emotional Mills told reporters. "It was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and Beatrice's future and all the charities I plan on helping."
Mills said her appeal was necessary because McCartney had "insisted" the full judgment be released. She objected to this because the document included "private, secure matters" relating to the couple's daughter, Beatrice, aged four, including about her schooling.
McCartney made no comment today and his spokesman said he would not be saying anything about the ruling.
Mills, who represented herself in court last month, hit out at both the legal establishment and McCartney's own lawyer, Fiona Shackleton, who she claimed "called me many, many names".
"Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well, it's against everything that they ever wish, so when they write the judgment up they're never going to make it look in favour," she said.
The judge ruled that McCartney should pay a lump sum of £16.5m and on top of that Mills should go away with assets of £7.8m including properties.
The lump sum comprises £14m for Mills's income needs – put by the judgment at £600,000 per year – and £2.5m to buy a property in London.
The settlement involves McCartney paying for Beatrice's nanny and school fees, as well as £35,000 a year directly for her.
Mills made it plain she thought this was a derisory sum. "Beatrice only gets £35,000 a year - so obviously she's meant to travel B class while her father travels A class, but obviously I will pay for that," she said.
Much of the court case apparently centred on significantly different estimates of McCartney's wealth. McCartney's lawyers reportedly spent a good deal of their time arguing he was not nearly as rich as claimed by Mills, who insisted today he was worth £800m.
The judge found that McCartney had wealth totalling around £400m, including business assets.
An appeal by Mills threatens to draw out what has been a messy and very public case.
When the couple announced their separation in 2006, they made a public commitment to sort out the matter amicably and without public fuss, particularly for the welfare of Beatrice.
"It's been suggested that she married me for the money and there is not an ounce of truth in this," McCartney said at the time.
A few months later, relations between the pair had descended into open warfare, much of it played out in newspaper pages. That October, a leaked court document laid out lurid claims about McCartney's alleged behaviour towards his wife during their marriage.
Other claims relayed in the media included that McCartney had changed the locks at their former marital home and frozen Mills's bank account.
While McCartney declined to comment publicly throughout the divorce process, Mills on occasions let the strain show. In October last year she broke down during an interview on GMTV and said she had been driven to the brink of suicide.
"I've had worse press than a paedophile or a murderer and I've done nothing but charity for 20 years," she said.
The highest divorce payout awarded by a British court to date has been £48m in 2006 to Beverley Charman, who was married for 28 years to the insurance magnate John Charman. The sum was based on the couple's total assets of £131m.
Lawyers say agreements as high as £100m have been reached privately.
