Money (That's What I Want)

So, it was £24.3 million - close to the 'estimates' flying around in the last few days. Let us just hope that is the end of it...

Update: The Times has published a summary of the judgement (thanks to Current Awareness for the link), which gives some details. Points to note:

1. Ms Mills sought an award of almost £125 million, whereas Sir Paul proposed that she should exit the marriage with assets of £15.8 million, inclusive of any lump sum award.

2. She was awarded a lump sum of £16.5 million, which together with her assets of £7.8 million means that she exits the marriage with total assets of £24.3.

3. The £16.5m award was made up of a sum of £14 million as the capitalised figure for her income needs, which the judge assessed as £600,000 per annum, and a sum of £2.5 million for her to buy a property in London.

4. Sir Paul's assets were valued at £400 million. Mr Justice Bennett found that: "There was no evidence at all before him that he was worth £800 million."

5. Lastly, the parties were: "strictly prohibited from publishing, disclosing or in any way revealing without the consent of the other the evidence, correspondence, transcripts, judgements or orders in the proceedings concerning (a) the child of the family, (b) the main suit, (c) the cross applications for ancillary relief and (d) any marital confidences."

OK, now let's hope that that really is the end of it, although I doubt it somehow.


  1. I see that Sir Paul is to pay £35,000 p.a. + nanny & school fees.

    Would it not be worth Heather's while to apply to the CSA?



  2. Regarding your post of yesterday, "McCartney Case Relevant to All", it's certainly relevant to me! As the Sunday Mirror put it, my case is Macca/Mucca in reverse and with much smaller numbers. The thing to note about the McCartney case that is relevant to all is the percentage that she got. If he's worth about 800 mil, then she got 3%; if he's worth 400 mil, she got 6%.

    Perhaps the way forward is to think in terms of percentages and not actual £. So, in a case where the "yardstick of equality" can be shown to apply, you would proceed from 50%. You then could adjust upwards or downwards in percentages based on the facts of the individual case. In the McCartney case, obviously the percentage has been adjusted vastly downwards from what she thought she should get. I've forgotten who, but someone said, "Mills should get a million for every Beatle's song she wrote".

    The other thing that I really want people to know about me is that what my ex-husband will probably get was always on offer to him the entire four years. The "horse" that he's betting on is paying/not paying any of my costs. So, he could have had pretty much the same amount four years ago without putting both our lawyer's kids through university in fees, with tweaking here and there in negotiation, and not paying my costs. However, he refused to negotiate anything at all in the entire four years.

    There have been things in the draft order that James Turner QC put in that they could have come to us in the last couple of weeks and asked to negotiate - but no.

    I begged him perhaps 20, yes 20, times to come to mediation to discuss co-parenting. He refused. The results, the effect on my son, you can guess.

    I was always open to mediation, negotiation, some level of compromise. What he and his lawyers bet on was that judges in the lower courts would ignore all precedents, and they did. However, the High Court does not ignore precedents, he will find to his cost.

    Another reason for anyone interested to attend court on Wednesday is that my ex-husband's barrister has, shall we say, created some difficult issues for herself personally. How those are dealt with will be fascinating. Let me put it this way: who amongst you would sacrifice your professional career for one, individual client?

  3. STH: Do you want to suggest that to her, or shall I? ;-)

    nightingale26: Some interesting points. I await the judgement with interest.

  4. Hey John, come and watch the show, the Finale! All are welcome.

  5. Well, that's a first - I don't recall ever being invited to a hearing before! Unfortunately, I have prior engagements, but I wish you good fortune.

  6. Hi again,

    perhaps she may not have thought about the CSA. Of course, if she acted as a LIP, the advice to do so may be been denied her - can I leave it to you, in your professional capacity, to do this?


    Seriously, John, do you know if anyone has calculated what she would get were she to apply to the CSA?


  7. No, but I suspect she would get rather less.

  8. Less?

    let's say that the childcare package (£35K + nanny + school fees) is worth £100K.

    For Sir Paul to pay this amount under the CSA rules used for the non-rich, it would represent 15% of his annual income. Thus if his annual income is more than £667K he's quids in.

    I wonder what the interest alone is on the £400 million pounds he is reputed to be worth?

    Anyone know her email address so I can tip her off (or do you want to do this John, and I'll split the fee with you)?



  9. Sorry to disappoint STH, but when I wrote my last comment I was being lazy (ready for bed probably!), and couldn't be bothered to make the calculation. The maximum net weekly income figure the CSA can use is £2,000, so the maximum weekly child support for one child is 15% x 2000 = £300, or £15,600 per annum. Ms Mills would have to apply to the court to get more than that.

  10. Hi John,

    let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument!

    Of course I was aware of the £2K limit (which is one of "the CSA rules used for the non-rich") and you seem to have missed the point of my comments, which is that the "principles" by which the CSA determine the amount one parent has to pay to the other don't seem to apply to Sir Paul.

    Is it right that there should be different criteria (i.e different principles) depending upon how rich you are? Of course there is sense in the argument that the amount required should be realistically determined on the basis of the child's requirements - but that should not blind us to the fact that the CSA rules which determine what the rest of us pay ignore everything other than the parent's income.

    I'll leave it at that;


  11. Hi STH,

    Ah, I seem to have been slow as well as lazy! Obviously, the idea is that there is a limit to a child's reasonable needs, but a cynic might say that it's one law for the rich, and one for everybody else. (Not that I'm suggesting you're a cynic... ;-))



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.