Mills-McCartney judgment part 11

By This Is Money
Updated: 17:05 BST, 18 March 2008

?

The 十分な judgment in the Sir Paul McCartney/Heather Mills 離婚 事例／患者 was published today by the 裁判官, Mr 司法（官） Bennett. This is part 11, the final instalment:

286. I am 満足させるd that the wife's 試みる／企てる to introduce the 申し立てられた／疑わしい 行為／行う of the husband p rior to the end of April 2006 should be disallowed. It would take many days, if not weeks, to hear and decide. It can make no difference to the result. It plainly is not 行為／行う which it would be inequitable to 無視（する）. The 主張 of 25 April 2006 is a sad 出来事/事件 in the 結婚の／夫婦の 争い. Even if 証明するd it is in my judgment part of the sad history of the 決裂／故障 of the marriage. As Baroness Hale of Richmond said at paragraph 145 of Miller:

'..once the 資産s are seen as a pool, and the couple as equal partners, then it is only equitable to take their 行為／行う into account if one has been very much more to 非難する that the other: in the famous words of Ormrod J in Wachtel v Wachtel [1973] 1 All ER 829 at 119, [1973] Fam 72 at 80, the 行為／行う had been 'both obvious and 甚だしい／１２ダース'. This approach is not only just, it is also the only practicable one. It is 簡単に not possible for any 部外者 to 選ぶ over the events of a marriage and decide who was the more to 非難する for what went wrong, save in the most obvious and 甚だしい／１２ダース 事例／患者s.'

287. In FS v JS [2007] 1 FLR 1496 Burton J 行為／行うd a useful review of many, if not all, of the 行為／行う 事例／患者s. Those 当局 undoubtedly show that the 行為／行う must be truly exceptional before it passes the statutory 基準. The 主張 as to the husband stultifying the wife's career is scarcely an 問題／発行する of 行為／行う and is 有能な of 存在 dealt with under the 長，率いるing of 補償（金） and/or her 収入 capacity.

288. I also 提案する to 除外する all the wife's 地位，任命する 分離 主張s of the husband's 行為／行う. Again, they can have no 衝撃 on her award. It is not 行為／行う which comes within (g). Again it would take many days, if not weeks, to decide.

289. So far as the husband's 主張s are 関心d it is instructive to look at the husband's affidavit of 8 January 2008. Although Mr Mostyn 捜し出すs to try to compartmentalise the wife's 行為／行う into three 際立った episodes, they are in reality examples of what the husband at paragraph 141 says is the wife's （選挙などの）運動をする since 分離 of trying to 原因（となる） him 害（を与える）, by portraying herself as the 犠牲者 and he as the monster. At paragraph 176 he returns to the 主題 of her '一致した （選挙などの）運動をする' as follows:

'I do believe that Heather's 不品行／姦通 since our 分離, her 一致した （選挙などの）運動をする to destroy my 評判 through 漏れるs, lies and 違反s of confidentiality, should be taken into account by the 法廷，裁判所 to 減ずる the award she could さもなければ have 推定する／予想するd to receive. It will be for my 合法的な 代表者／国会議員s to explain this その上の.'

290. The reality is that the husband's 事例／患者 is no more than the other 味方する of the coin. On one 味方する is the wife's 事例／患者 of the husband running a マスコミ （選挙などの）運動をする to smear her; on the other is the husband's 事例／患者 that it is the wife who is running a マスコミ （選挙などの）運動をする to smear him.

291. The husband 捜し出すs to 設立する not only that the Answer and Cross-嘆願（書） was 漏れるd by or on に代わって of the wife with her 十分な knowledge but also that the contents of the Cross-嘆願（書） are untrue - see paragraph 64, 65, 66 of Mr Mostyn's 公式文書，認める on 行為／行う. The husband has gone to 広大な／多数の／重要な lengths in his affidavit to show they are untrue. Thus it seems to me that it is an 必須の part of the husband's 事例／患者 that not only did the wife 漏れる her pleading but also that the 主張s therein are untrue. Surely, then, if I were to 許す the husband to run this 問題／発行する of 行為／行う, the wife would be する権利を与えるd to say that her 主張s are not 誤った but true. Thus, as I have 受託するd the husband's submissions 除外するing the wife's 事例／患者 on 行為／行う, it would be wholly wrong to 許す the husband to raise 行為／行う.

292. Mr Mostyn's submission that the 'untruth' of the wife's 主張s only 捜し出す to '悪化させる' the 漏れるing of her pleading seems to me to get him nowhere other than 支援する into the 円形競技場 of pre-分離 行為／行う which he 服従させる／提出するs (正確に) should be 除外するd anyway.

293. As to the telephone 盗聴 episode in June 2006, the wife 否定するs 盗聴 the husband's telephone line in June 2006. In the conversation, as 報告（する）／憶測d in the Sunday Mirror article of 9 July 2006, it is 恐らく Stella, not the husband, who castigates the wife. I 拒絶する the notion that 簡単に because the wife may have committed a serious 犯罪の offence of 盗聴, that alone 量s to 行為／行う 関連した under (g). その上に, and centrally to my mind, this episode is part of the husband's 全体にわたる （民事の）告訴 that this illustrates, and is part of, the wife's （選挙などの）運動をする to discredit him. Both the wife and the husband 告発する／非難する each other of 行為／行うing a （選挙などの）運動をする of いやがらせ and vilification. The reality is that if I let the husband （軍隊を）展開する，配備する a 事例／患者 about 盗聴 telephones together with その後の 解放（する） of them to the 圧力（をかける）, this will open up a can of worms and the litigation may 必然的に snowball with （人命などを）奪う，主張する and 反対する （人命などを）奪う，主張する.

294. 違反 of confidentiality - I, too, would 除外する this. In relation to the interviews of 31 October and 1 November I have read the husband's account at paragraph 73 of his affidavit. I assume for the 目的 of this judgment only that in those interviews the wife lost her 冷静な／正味の 完全に, went 権利 over the 最高の，を越す, and behaved in an erratic, out of 支配（する）／統制する, and vengeful manner. But I have got to be 強健な about these 事柄s. This 主張 again is to be seen as part and 小包 of the 申し立てられた／疑わしい （選挙などの）運動をする of いやがらせ and vilification. I do not think that the 申し立てられた／疑わしい behaviour of the wife is going to 補助装置 me to arrive at a fair judgment for an award of 財政上の 準備／条項.

295. In any event, what is the 規模 of the 削減 in the 量 of the award that the husband 捜し出すs ーするために 反映する the 行為／行う of the wife, even if 証明するd? The short answer, is indeed, a mere 記念品. The husband's 提案s are (see paragraphs 79-82 of Mr Mostyn's 開始 公式文書，認める) that the wife should have 逮捕する 出口 基金s of £15.8m いっそう少なく £809,000 to ref lect the wife's 行為／行う. It is submitted that such a deduction is 'a fair and not 記念品 表現 of the 衝撃 of the wife's 行為／行う'.

296. It is obvious to me that £809,000 is 簡単に a convenient, arithmetical 人物／姿／数字 to bring the 人物／姿／数字 負かす／撃墜する to £15m 代表するing the wife's 逮捕する 出口 基金s. There is no 論理（学）の 原則 to underpin £809,000 or any lesser sum. In any event whilst to the man and woman in the street, £809,000 is a lot of money, in the instant 事例／患者 it is not so 重要な that I should 許す the husband to （軍隊を）展開する，配備する a 事例／患者 of 行為／行う. It must be put in 状況. As a 百分率 of the husband's wealth (which is 概略で £400,000,000) £809,000 代表するs 0.2%. Of £15,809,000, £809,000 代表するs 5.1%.

297. I 悔いる to say that I 堅固に 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う that the 動機s of both wife and husband in trying to introduce the 行為／行う of each other into these 財政上の 救済 訴訟／進行s has got far more to do with the 差し迫った 名誉き損 裁判，公判s than the instant 訴訟／進行s. I 受託する that 行為／行う was raised by each of the parties in their Forms E which predated the 開始／学位授与式 of 名誉き損 訴訟／進行s. But 事柄s have moved on a long way since then.

298. For the wife, findings in her favour 特に on the 漏れるing of her Answer and Cross-嘆願（書） and on the 実体 of her 主張s therein, may, in her perception, immeasurably 改善する her chances of success in the 名誉き損 訴訟／進行s. For the husband, 正確に because he is not a party to the 名誉き損 訴訟／進行s he 捜し出すs findings from me as to the wife's 行為／行う (in particular that the wife 漏れるd her Answer and Cross-嘆願（書） and that the 主張s therein against him are untrue), which, in his perception, may stymie the wife's 名誉き損 訴訟／進行s in which his 申し立てられた／疑わしい behaviour に向かって the wife are at the 核心. Mr Mostyn's 交流s with Coleridge J on 20 December 2007 to which I have referred amply support that 見解（をとる）. In my judgment it is not appropriate for this 法廷，裁判所 to hear the hus 禁止（する）d's 行為／行う 主張s 単に because he is not a party to the 名誉き損 訴訟／進行s.

General 査定／評価

299. Having gone through each of the 事柄s in section 25(2) of the 1973 行為／法令／行動する which the 法廷，裁判所 is 要求するd to take into account I should now step 支援する and look at the 事柄 概して and in the light of the 関連した 当局.

300. I have been referred to the speeches in the House of Lords in the 主要な 当局 of Miller (to which I have already referred), in particular to what Baroness Hale of Richmond said between paragraphs 147 and 153 in relation to the source of the 資産s and the length of the marriage. I would also draw attention to what Lord Mance said at paragraph 169.

301. The 演習 to be undertaken by the 法廷，裁判所 as propounded in Miller has been summarised in the judgment of the 法廷，裁判所 of 控訴，上告 in Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 1 FLR 1246 between paragraphs 63 and 73 inclusive. I will not 始める，決める out verbatim in this judgment what the 法廷，裁判所 of 控訴，上告 there said. I have read Charman and these paragraphs in particular. I would 最高潮の場面 paragraph 70 where the 法廷，裁判所 of 控訴，上告 said:

'Thus the 原則 of need 要求するs consideration of the 財政上の needs, 義務s and 責任／義務s of the parties ...; of the 基準 of living enjoyed by the family before the 決裂／故障 of the marriage ...; of the age of each party ...; and of any physical or mental disability of either of them ...'

302. I would also wish to 言及する to one 宣告，判決 from paragraph 73, すなわち:

'It is （疑いを）晴らす that, when the result supported by the needs 原則 is an award of 所有物／資産／財産 greater that the result 示唆するd by the 株ing 原則, the former result should in 原則 勝つ／広く一帯に広がる: per Baroness Hale of Richmond in Miller paragraphs [142] and [144].'

303. Mr Mostyn encapsulates the husband's 事例／患者 at paragraph 40 of his の近くにing submissions:

'In a short marriag e where the 資産s were all in place 事前の to that marriage and where the 資産s have not 増加するd by 言及／関連 to '共同' activity the wife should get a needs-based award. The 原則 of 株ing is 簡単に not engaged. This, of course, is the 指導／手引 of those passages of White and Miller that を取り引きする 相続するd or pre-結婚の／夫婦の 資源s. Pre-結婚の／夫婦の wealth is a very important factor and can 行為／法令／行動する so as to 追い出す the 株ing 原則 altogether. Put another way, there can be a 出発 from 株ing to need in a 事例／患者 where 事実上 all the 資産s are pre-結婚の／夫婦の or derive therefrom.'

304. He thus contrasts such a 事例／患者 with a 事例／患者 of a short marriage where there has been a very 相当な 増加する in the 資産 base e.g. Mr Miller's New 星／主役にする 株, in which the 株ing 原則 may be engaged.

305. In my judgment, the 補償（金） 原則 始める，決める out in Miller is 簡単に not engaged in the instant 事例／患者 given my findings of fact. I say no more about it.

306. But is the 株ing 原則 engaged? ーするために try to 査定する／（税金などを）課す this 事柄 it is important to see how Mr Pointer put the wife's 事例／患者 in his 公式文書，認める of October 2007. The wife would wish me to 言及する to it. He 概して 繰り返し言うs of the wife's 事例／患者 始める，決める out in her open letters from December 2006 onwards, though perhaps rather トンd 負かす／撃墜する. He 繰り返し言うs many of the points which I 拒絶するd in my judgment of 1 March 2007. The only 言及／関連 to a '結婚の／夫婦の acquest' is at paragraphs 22 et seq 最高潮に達するing in an 主張 at paragraph 28 that the 結婚の／夫婦の acquest is to be put at £60m. In paragraph 44 it is said that the wife 捜し出すs 準備／条項 of £50m which is a 重要な 割引 from her needs as 計算するd in her Form E. But there is no 援助 to be 伸び（る）d from that 公式文書，認める as to how £50m is arrived at. As with the open 申し込む／申し出s of the wife 始める，決める out in her former solicitors' letters, it does seem rather to be a 人物／姿／数字 plucked from the 空気／公表する.

307. I have searched, too, t hrough the wife's 骸骨／概要 argument of 6 February 2008 and her の近くにing submissions for 援助. But I have to say I 設立する very little. This may seem rather 厳しい upon a litigant in person, until it is remembered that the wife has had the 利益 of 援助 and advice from 2 lawyers, one of them an English lawyer, as her Mackenzie friends, in 新規加入 to the 援助 and advice from her former solicitors and counsel from August 2006 until 早期に November 2007.

308. Is there, in truth, a 結婚の／夫婦の acquest? The husband has sought to 会合，会う this point in his Form E. I have already 始める，決める out the 関連した passage in paragraph 110 above.

309. The total value of the husband's 資産s as at 2002 and 2006 are £347.5m and £387m それぞれ. The value of his 商売／仕事 資産s 減少（する）d by £20m. The 非，不，無-商売／仕事 資産s 増加するd by £41.5m of which £20.1m 代表するs 'passive' 増加する. Thus any 'active' 増加する is £21.4m.

310. I do not 提案する to enter into any 審議 whether this active acquest can be みなすd to be a special or exceptional 出資／貢献 of the husband. I take Mr Mostyn's point at paragraph 147.5 of his の近くにing submissions that if a fair 株ing of 結婚の／夫婦の acquest has any 合法的 役割 to play in this 事例／患者, it must be as a cross-check against the 法廷，裁判所's 一時的に 査定／評価 of the wife's needs.

311. In my judgment, in this 事例／患者 the needs of the wife (generously 解釈する／通訳するd) are not 簡単に one of the factors in the 事例／患者 but are a factor of 磁石の importance. In a 事例／患者 where the 広大な 本体，大部分／ばら積みの of the husband's enormous fortune was made not only before their marriage but also indeed before the wife and husband even met; where the '結婚の／夫婦の acquest' (if such there has been) is of a very small 量 compared to the total 資産s; where the 補償（金） 原則 is not in any way engaged; where the marriage is short and where the 基準 of living lasted only so long as the marriage; where the wife is now and will be very comfortably housed; and where Beatrice's needs are fully 保証するd, surely fairness 要求するs that the wife's needs (generously 解釈する／通訳するd) are the 支配的な factor in the S.25 演習. Any other radically different way of looking at this 事例／患者 would, in my judgment, be manifestly 不公平な.

312. I now turn to 捜し出す to capitalise the wife's income needs of £600,000 p.a.

313. It must always be remembered that the models of capitalisation referred to in the 当局, to which I shall now 言及する, are guides to reaching a fair capitalised 人物／姿／数字. They are not to be taken as rigid 決まり文句／製法. They are useful 道具s in the search for fairness.

314. At paragraph 105 of his submissions Mr Mostyn 服従させる／提出するs that the wife's 予算 should be, at least at first, capitalised on the basis 可決する・採択するd by Thorpe J (as he then was) in Flick v Flick [1995] 2 FLR 45, where he said at p67:

'I think that Mr Lawrence of Coopers & Lybrand has 権利 原則 and good sense on his 味方する when he distinguishes between the years of maternal 責任／義務 and the 可能性のある years of dower beyond. He has in his computations drawn a distinction after 17 years to 反映する the youngest child 達成するing the age of 21. At that 行う／開催する／段階 his models postulate the introduction of £1m of 資本／首都. I think that there is in this 事例／患者 a 特に sound basis for that postulation. It is not 簡単に the 可能性 that at that 行う／開催する／段階 of life the wife would choose to 占領する a smaller home. It is very 正確に that the 資本／首都 cost of her 最初の／主要な home is inflated by the 限定するs of the 地理学 of the children's 現在の schooling. But when that 段階 of the children's life is 完全にする there will no longer be the geographical 限定するs 表明するd by the circle around the Berkshire house, and the 専門家 証拠 on both 味方するs shows that the cost of a 類似の 所有物／資産／財産 which is not so 限定するd 地理学的に is だいたい £1m いっそう少なく than one that is. So I find 安全な・保証する 合理的な／理性的な 創立／基礎 for Mr Lawrence's 仮定／引き受けること of a 資本／首都 introduction at that 行う／開催する／段階 of the 熟視する／熟考するd 未来 landscape.

I also find 実体 for his second 仮定／引き受けること that the income 必要物／必要条件s would at that 行う／開催する／段階 減ずる to 60% of the 初期の level. Of course, I 受託する the 軍隊 of Mr Pointer's submission that superficially there is an element of 二塁打 deduction. The child expenses have been 徹底的に捜すd out and 供給するd for by 定期刊行物 支払い（額）s. That 準備／条項 will 中止する not at a 一打／打撃 but by 行う／開催する／段階s. However, it is やめる unrealistic not to recognise that 未来 支出, like past 支出, is never uniform but always 発展させるing. At different ages of the human （期間が）わたる the character of individual 支出 is very variable. The wife, in her middle 30s, is at a 行う／開催する／段階 of life when her 支出 is on the flood. She has 設立するd social 関係s with very rich cosmopolitan people. She has no 疑問 a position to 持続する in that world which 正当化するs an 年次の 予算 as high as it stands even after pruning. But as she ages so will her tastes, her recreations, and her values change. I 受託する the worldly 知恵 with which Mr Drew 強調s that, save in the area of 医療の expense, the graph of 支出 is a 拒絶する／低下するing graph as age 進歩s.'

315. Mr Mostyn 服従させる／提出するs that the capitalisation should take account not only of the basis propounded in Flick but he does not 除外する taking account of a straight, amortised Duxbury capitalisation. The Flick capitalisation would, he 服従させる／提出するs, be based upon the に引き続いて:

i) Her 予算 of £430,000 落ちるing to 60% of that 人物／姿／数字 in year 17 when Beatrice is 21.

Ii )The introduction of £1.75m 資本／首都 in year 17 (her London 所有物／資産／財産)

iii) 収入 capacity of £110,000 p.a. 甚だしい／１２ダース from age 41 to 60.

316. Of course these 人物／姿／数字s will now have to be 代用品，人d by £600,000, £2.5m and £75,000 p.a. 甚だしい／１２ダース それぞれ and after two years not one.

317. On Mr Mostyn's 予算 of £430,000 with his other 人物／姿／数字s the Flick capitalisation would be £7,609,889. The straight, amortised Duxbury capitalisation i.e. without any 削減 to 60% re the income needs, with no introduction of 資本／首都 in year 17 and with no 収入 capacity, is £12,508,169. The 同等（の） 人物／姿／数字s for a 予算 of £500,000 would be £9,288,005 (per Flick) and £14,610,909 (per Duxbury). For a 予算 of £1m the 各々の capitalised 人物／姿／数字s are £21,274,731 and £29,630,169.

318. It is fair to say that Mr Mostyn did 捜し出す to 説得する me to 可決する・採択する the approach in Fournier v Fournier [1988] 2 FLR 990. But it is not a submission that he 支持するd in any 広大な／多数の／重要な depth or with very much 説得／派閥. For, his 提案 in his written submissions that the wife should 出口 the marriage with £15.8m is based on a capitalisation of her income needs at a 中央の-point between Flick and Duxbury, albeit with 人物／姿／数字s lower than 地雷. In my judgment for me to take such a middle course is fair.

319. Taking the Flick and Duxbury capitalisations at paragraph 317 above I 見積（る） that on the basis of needs of £600,000 p.a. a Flick capitalisation would be of the order of about £11m and a Duxbury capitalisation of about £17m. Although わずかに more for the London 所有物／資産／財産 (£2.5m as against Mr Mostyn's 人物／姿／数字 of £1.75m) must be 倍のd in to the 計算／見積り, her 収入 capacity I have 査定する／（税金などを）課すd at かなり いっそう少なく (£75,000 as against £110,000 and after two years not one). There is one other factor. As I have said, I have 追加するd 支援する in to the wife's 資産s £500,000 for 過度の 支出. If she had had that sum then that would have been 解放する／自由な money for her to put に向かって 収入 歳入. That factor, too, I believe, should be 反映するd here to some extent.

320. Within the wife's 資産s are some £913,000 of bank balances and £683,000 代表するing Fiona Mills' mortgage and Sonya Mills' house. The 残りの人，物 of the wife's 資産s are in real 所有物／資産／財産 which I have 設立する it is reasonable for her to keep. I do not consider it fair to 要求する the wife to put either of these two sums に向かって a capitalisation of her income needs. First, the wife is most ありそうもない to be able to turn into cash either Fiona's mortgage or Sonya's house at least for some かなりの time to come, if ever. In my judgment it would be やめる 不公平な to 推定する／予想する her to 需要・要求する 返済 of the mortgage to Fiona (even assuming that she was 合法的に する権利を与えるd to do) and/or to sell the house in which Sonya lives. Second, in any event I do not consider it 不当な in a 事例／患者 such as this for the wife to have a contingency 基金 which is 代表するd by her bank balances.

321. Thus 反映するing all the factors and looking at the 事柄 概して it seems to me to be appropriate to take a 人物／姿／数字 中央の way between £11m and £17m. All in all, in my judgment the fair capitalisation 人物／姿／数字 for the wife's income needs is the 人物／姿／数字 of £14m. In 新規加入 she needs £2.5m to buy a London 所有物／資産／財産.

322. Accordingly, I shall order that the husband will 支払う／賃金 to the wife on or after 法令 nisi a lump sum of £16.5m. This then means that she will 出口 the marriage with 所有物／資産／財産 and 基金s of £24.3m. Thus, in my judgment, the 株ing 原則, on the 仮定／引き受けること that such may arguably be applicable here, is subsumed within her needs and indeed in the total 人物／姿／数字 with which she 出口s the marriage.

323. I consider this result to be fair in all the circumstances for the 推論する／理由s I have sought to give. If the wife considers that my adjudication to be 不公平に low, then I would say this. In the end it is for the applicant in ancillary 救済 訴訟／進行s to make a 合理的な／理性的な and 論理（学）の 事例／患者 for the award that is sought. If an applicant puts 今後 an 過度の, indeed exorbitant, '（人命などを）奪う，主張する' which then she (or he) 試みる／企てるs to 穏健な by way of open 申し込む／申し出s, but which 申し込む／申し出s still fail to be supported by 合理的な／理性的な and 論理（学）の bases, then the applicant has only h erself (or himself) to 非難する if the 法廷，裁判所 awards much いっそう少なく than what the applicant 推定する／予想するs. This 事例／患者 is a paradigm example of an applicant failing to put a 合理的な／理性的な and 論理（学）の 事例／患者 and thus failing to 補助装置 the 法廷，裁判所 in its quasi-inquisitorial 役割 to reach a fair result.

324. During the course of the wife's 証拠 Mr Mostyn asked her if she would 同意 to an order, 支配する to any leave to 報告（する）／憶測 存在 認めるd by the 裁判官, 禁じるing both the husband and herself and any persons 事実上の／代理 on their に代わって from publishing, 公表する／暴露するing, or in any way 明らかにする／漏らすing without the 同意 of the other, the 証拠, correspondence, transcripts or judgments in this 事例／患者, the 条件 of the 財政上の award and any 結婚の／夫婦の 信用／信任s; and if 同意 was not 来たるべき then the party 捜し出すing 出版（物） should be able to 捜し出す the 許可 of a Family 分割 裁判官.

325. The wife agreed to a 同意 order 存在 made in those 条件.

326. I agree to make such an order. Both parties want it and in the exceptional circumstances of this 事例／患者 it is just and fair to make such an order. I shall also attach a penal notice to this part of my order. But I should 警告する each of the parties that if either of them 本人自身で or through their associates transgresses, then the consequences for committing a 法廷侮辱（罪） may be 悲惨な. The penal notice will make that （疑いを）晴らす.

327. Mr Mostyn also 示唆するd that I should 問題／発行する a 警告 to the マスコミ not to publish 事柄s covered by my order and that to do so would 量 to a 法廷侮辱（罪）. I am 確信して that the マスコミ realise that both the Children 行為／法令／行動する and the ancillary 救済 訴訟／進行s have been 行為／行うd in 私的な in 一致 with the 関連した 支配するs of 法廷，裁判所 and are confidential. I am also 確信して that the マスコミ will 尊敬（する）・点 the privacy and confidentiality of both 始める，決めるs of 訴訟／進行s. Beyond that nothing more needs to be said.

(end)