Tuesday, March 18, 2008

The Burning Question

Well, of course it wasn't all over, but perhaps it is now (one can live in hope). Heather Mills was refused permission to appeal against the decision to make the full judgment public. The judgment will now be published, and I'll provide a link to it as soon as I have it. However, don't expect it to answer the burning question of exactly what led to Fiona Shackleton emerging from court yesterday with wet hair.

Update (about 2 minutes after I posted the above!): That didn't take long. The judgment has now been published, here, all 58 pages of it. I may post further about it once I've read it, if I still have the will to live...

Update to update: Fearing for my sanity, I have only scanned through the judgment. It goes into the details of the history of the marriage and the proceedings (with Ms Mills unsurprisingly not coming out unscathed), but essentially the decision was a simple needs-based one. Perhaps the most telling statement of Mr Justice Bennett is this: "This case is a paradigm example of an applicant [i.e. Ms Mills] failing to put a rational and logical case and thus failing to assist the court in its quasi-inquisitorial role to reach a fair result." So much for representing herself.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.