McCartney 離婚 戦う／戦い: Read the 十分な judgment here

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BENNETT

認可するd Judgment

McCartney v Mills McCartney

Mr 司法（官） Bennett :

1. This final 審理，公聴会 関心s the 使用／適用 by Ms Heather Mills/Lady McCartney (“the wife”) for 財政上の 準備／条項 against Sir Paul McCartney (“the husband”).

2. The 審理，公聴会 took place over six days between 11 and 18 February 2008. The wife 代表するd herself 補助装置d, with my 許可, by three Mckenzie Friends, すなわち her sister, Fiona Mills, Mr David Rosen, a solicitor-支持する, and Mr Michael Shilub, an American 弁護士／代理人／検事. The husband was 代表するd by Mr Nicholas Mostyn QC and Mr Timothy Bishop, 教えるd by Payne Hicks Beach.

3. The 戦う／戦い lines are 始める，決める out in the open 申し込む／申し出 made by each party 事前の to the start of the final 審理，公聴会. In her letter of 31 January 2008 the wife 計算するs her reasonable needs for herself and Beatrice at £3,250,000 p.a. which 量s on a Duxbury capitalised basis to £99,480,000. She 捜し出すs a 所有物／資産／財産 調整 order in 尊敬（する）・点 of a 所有物／資産／財産 in Beverley Hills called “Heather House” and of a 所有物／資産／財産 in New York 明言する／公表する, 11 Pintail.

She 捜し出すs between £8m and £12.5m for a home in London, £3m to 購入（する） a 所有物／資産／財産 in New York, £500,000 to £750,000 to 購入（する） an office in Brighton, a 移転 to her of a mortgage in favour of the husband over her sister's (Fiona) Hove 所有物／資産／財産, 移転 of 所有物／資産／財産 order re a Southampton 所有物／資産／財産 owned by the husband in which Sonya Mills lives, and 救済 in 尊敬（する）・点 of chattels.

その上の, the wife asks the 法廷，裁判所 “to place a 重要な 通貨の value on 補償（金） for loss of 収入s, 出資／貢献 and 行為／行う”. She would 保持する her own 所有物／資産／財産s at Pean's 支持を得ようと努めるd in Robertsbridge, Sussex and at Angel's 残り／休憩（する） in Hove. 全体にわたる her （人命などを）奪う，主張する 量s to about £125m. She also 捜し出すs an order for costs.

4. By letter of 6 February 2008 Messrs Payne Hicks Beach 始める，決める out the husband's position. 全体にわたる the wife should 出口 the proceedi ngs with total 資産s of £15m (after a deduction for 行為／行う) made up as follows.

Sonya Mills' home and the mortgage on Fiona's home should be transferred to the wife at a 連合させるd value of £683,000; Angel's 残り／休憩（する） (which has now been valued at £2m); the 逮捕する value of Pean's 支持を得ようと努めるd; the value of 基金s that either the wife has or should have; and a balancing lump sum 供給するd 確かな art is returned to the husband. その上の, the husband would 会合，会う the reasonable cost of 安全 for the wife and for their child, Beatrice, for 2 years not 越えるing £150,000 p.a. For Beatrice, the husband would 支払う／賃金 定期刊行物 支払い（額）s at £35,000 p.a. and for a nanny not to 越える £25,000 p.a. Both these 人物／姿／数字s would be 索引-linked.

The 定期刊行物 支払い（額）s would continue until Beatrice is 17 years old or 完全にするs 第２位 education, whichever is the later. その上の, he will 発射する／解雇する the school 料金s, uniform and reasonable extras, and health 保険 賞与金s. 提案s were made as to chattels. There would be no order as to costs.

5. Both parties made it （疑いを）晴らす that each wants a clean break both under the Matrimonial 原因（となる）s 行為／法令／行動する 1973 (as 修正するd) and under the 相続物件 (準備／条項 for Family and 被告s) 行為／法令／行動する 1975.

6. The barest 輪郭（を描く） of the background would be that the wife and the husband met in the spring of 1999, became engaged on 22 July 2001, married on 11 June 2002, separated on 29 April 2006 and ever since have been engaged in 長引いた matrimonial litigation.

They have one child, Beatrice born on 28 October 2003 who is therefore now 4 years old.

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BENNETT

認可するd Judgment

McCartney v Mills McCartney

7. No 法令 nisi has yet been pronounced, for the に引き続いて 推論する／理由s. On 17 July 2006 the husband とじ込み／提出するd a 嘆願（書） for 離婚 on the grounds of the wife's 不当な behaviour. On 13 October 2006 the wife とじ込み／提出するd an Answer 否定するing the husband's 主張 of 不当な behaviour and cross-praying for 離婚 on the grounds of the husba nd's 不当な behaviour. On 28 February 2007 the 控訴, the ancillary 救済 訴訟／進行s and an 使用／適用 by the wife for 維持／整備 未解決の 控訴 （機の）カム before me.

I shall return to this 審理，公聴会 later in the judgment.

十分である it to say for the moment that at my 誘発するing the parties agreed to stay their 離婚 訴訟／進行s and on or after 1 May 2008, by which time would have been separated for 2 years, to one party 現在のing a fresh 嘆願（書） for 離婚 based on the 2 years 分離 and to the other 同意ing to a 離婚. So, at a 審理，公聴会 arranged for 12 May I hope to be able to pronounce a 法令 nisi of 離婚.

8. The husband's 事例／患者 on 財政上の 準備／条項 for the wife is summarised at paragraph 9 of the 開始 公式文書，認める of Mr Mostyn QC as follows:

“We 服従させる／提出する that fundamentally this is a straightforward 事例／患者. Because of H's enormous pre-結婚の／夫婦の wealth and because of the 簡潔な／要約する duration of this marriage W's （人命などを）奪う，主張する should be 決定するd by 言及／関連 to the 原則 of need alone.

"This is not a 事例／患者 where the 原則 of 株ing of the “結婚の／夫婦の acquest” is engaged at all. Nor is it a 事例／患者 where the 原則 of 補償（金） will arise. W's needs 落ちる to be 公正に／かなり 査定する／（税金などを）課すd, not predominantly by 言及／関連 to the 基準 of living during the marriage. W's award should be 減ずるd to 反映する her 地位，任命する-分離 不品行／姦通.

"That 不品行／姦通 is based on three 際立った episodes as explained in our 行為／行う 公式文書，認める.”

9. The wife's 事例／患者 cannot be so succinctly summarised.

By the time of the parties' first 会合 in May of 1999 the wife says that she was 豊富な and 独立した・無所属 with, as she told me in 証拠, 所有物／資産／財産s and cash totalling between £2m and £3m.

She earned her living as a TV presenter, a model and public （衆議院の）議長. She began to cohabit with the husband from March 2000 which led seamlessly into marriage and thus the 関係 lasted 6 years. This is 否定するd by the husband.

The wife says that the husband's 態度 に向かって her career w as one of constriction such that the 適切な時期s for the 開発 of her career fell away during their 関係.

He dictated what she could or could not do. She thus 捜し出すs 補償（金） for the loss of her career 適切な時期 in that during their cohabitation and その後の marriage she forewent a lucrative and successful career. She 捜し出すs an award 相応した with 存在 the wife of, and the mother of the child of, an icon.

She places 広大な／多数の／重要な 負わせる on the 出資／貢献s she says she has made to counselling the husband's children by his former marriage and to the husband's professional career.

She 主張するs that his 資産s are 価値（がある） in 超過 of £800m and that she is する権利を与えるd to 株 in the “結婚の／夫婦の acquest”.

Finally, she 主張するs that throughout their marriage and after their 分離 the husband behaved in such a way that it would be inequitable to 無視（する） and that his 行為／行う should be 反映するd in the award.

10. During the course of this judgment I shall have to 決定する 確かな 事柄s of fact.

11. The major factual 問題／発行するs as to the history of their 関係 that I must 決定する are these. First, at the time the parties met, was the wife a 豊富な and 独立した・無所属 person?

This is linked to the third 問題／発行する. Second, did the parties cohabit from March 2000 or from the date of the marriage?

The relevance of this 問題／発行する is to the length of their 関係 and to the その上の 問題／発行する of “結婚の／夫婦の acquest”.

Third, did the husband constrict the wife's career after cohabitation (whether at March 2000 or June 2002)? This is 関連した to the 問題／発行する of “補償（金）” for an 恐らく lost or 制限するd career of the wife.

12. I shall also have to 決定する 問題／発行するs of fact 関心ing the husband's and the wife's 資産s, the wife's 提案するd income needs, the wife's 支出 between October 2006 and December 2007, and the wife's 収入 capacity.

13. Many of the 問題／発行するs of fact 伴う／関わる a 長，率いる on 衝突 between the 証拠 of the wi fe and the husband, in which I shall also have to 診察する the 関連した and important 文書s. It is therefore appropriate that I should 簡潔に say something at this 行う／開催する／段階 about the 証拠 of each of the parties.

14. The wife is a strong willed and 決定するd personality. She has shown 広大な／多数の／重要な fortitude in the 直面する of, and 打ち勝つing, her disability. I 言及する to the loss of her left 脚 below the 膝. As I shall show she is a kindly person and is 充てるd to her charitable 原因（となる）s. She has 行為／行うd her own 事例／患者 before me with a steely, yet courteous, 決意.

15. The husband's 証拠 was, in my judgment, balanced. He 表明するd himself moderately though at times with 正当と認められる irritation, if not 怒り／怒る. He was 一貫した, 正確な and honest.

16. But I 悔いる to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife's 証拠. Having watched and listened to her give 証拠, having 熟考する／考慮するd the 文書s, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous 緊張する she must have been under (and in 行為／行うing her own 事例／患者) I am driven to the 結論 that much of her 証拠, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and 不確かの but also いっそう少なく than candid. 全体にわたる she was a いっそう少なく than impressive 証言，証人／目撃する.

17. The husband's background needs little 解説，博覧会.

He is, and has been for many years, a world famous musician, 作曲家 and singer. He is an icon to millions of people.

He married Linda, who had a daughter from her first marriage, whom the husband subsequently 可決する・採択するd. He and Linda had 3 children, Mary, Stella and James. In 1998 Linda died of 癌. I have no 疑問 that he was 深く，強烈に upset by her death. He is now 65 years old.

18. The wife, who is now 40 years old, spent much of her childhood in Northumberland. She seems to have had a rather troubled childhood. When she was 14 years old she had to move to live with her mother in London. She left her mother's home 老年の 15. She took a number of 職業s.

19. When she was 17 years old she st arted modelling. After a modelling 競争 she got a 職業 現在のing a TV series. More modelling 職業s followed. When she was 20 years old (1988) she went to live and work in Paris.

20. In 1989 she married. The union was childless. She and her former husband 最終的に 離婚d. She learned to ski and became an 指導者. She learned to ski in Slovenia.

21. During the 危機 that 影響する／感情d the old Yugoslavia the wife became appalled by the fighting and the terrible 傷害s 苦しむd 特に by the 非軍事の 全住民. She became ひどく 伴う／関わるd in charitable 作品 joining 軍用車隊s of トラックで運ぶs taking food and 着せる／賦与するing to Croatia. She became very conscious of the terrible 傷害s （打撃，刑罰などを）与えるd by landmines. She saw a number of people who had lost 四肢s, 特に 脚s.

22. In 1993 her trips to Croatia 減らすd as her modelling career in the UK began to 栄える. At paragraph 26 of her affidavit of 30 January 2008 she says:

“In 早期に 1993 my trips to Croatia became いっそう少なく and いっそう少なく たびたび（訪れる）, as my modelling career in the UK began to take off. I got work modelling all over the world 含むing in the Bahamas, Malaysia, America and the Middle East.

"I won lucrative 契約s with 示すs and Spencers, River Island and Slix, the swimwear company …. I believe I was 収入 at that time in the 地域 of £200,000 per 年. I do not have my 税金 returns although I did request the same from the Inland 歳入 who 知らせるd me by letter that they are not 利用できる….”

23. On 8 August 1993 she was on a zebra crossing in London and was unfortunately 攻撃する，衝突する by a police motorcyclist. Her left foot was 厳しいd above the ankle.

She 苦しむd 長，率いる 傷害s, 割れ目d ribs, a 穴をあけるd long and 多重の fractures of the pelvis. Her left 脚 was amputated 6 インチs below the 膝. In October 1993 she underwent another 操作／手術 which 縮めるd her 脚 still その上の but still below the 膝.

24. The wife says that, に引き続いて マスコミ enquiries, she gave interviews and earned about £180,000 in 10 days. She wrote a 調書をとる／予約する “Out on a 四肢”, the proceeds of which were 寄付するd to 輸送（する） 人工的な 四肢s to Croatia. She says that thereafter she did much public speaking and her 収入s were in the 範囲 of £300,000 per 年.

25. She became 伴う／関わるd in fundraising for a number of charities ? see in particular her description at paragraph 32 of her affidavit. She continued to do an enormous 量 of charitable work in particular 存在 伴う／関わるd in 輸送（する）ing 人工的な 四肢s to Croatia. She was by now, she says, an 設立するd public （衆議院の）議長.

26. At paragraph 45-47 of her affidavit she says:

“After my 事故 in 1993, I raised money through public speaking in 援助（する） of charities. I became one of the 最高の，を越す 10 女性（の） （衆議院の）議長s in Europe.

Between 1993 and 1999 when I met Paul my income spiralled for example in 1997 I had a modelling 契約 for £750,000; I wrote, with a ghost writer, a best selling autobiography called Out on a 四肢 and in the year 事前の to marrying Paul I earned $1,000,000 for 14 days work. ーするために support myself and to help with my charity work, I did a lot of television 現在のing, for example, Good Morning with Anne & Nick, Keanu Reeves interview, BBC TVAM, 冷気／寒がらせる Out With Heather series (where I interviewed a number of 井戸／弁護士席 known people), The Holiday programme, Wish You Were Here, Travelogue, First Say (after Panorama show), 無線で通信する hosting, The General hospital, Richard and Judy, etc etc the 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる） is endless. I also continued modelling. I would 与える／捧げる a lot of my 収入s to charity….

Before I met Paul in 1999, examples of my work 含むd:

a. That's Esther Show with Esther Ranzten ? I was a co-presenter, making and 現在のing 報告（する）／憶測s. I did だいたい 25 programmes 焦点（を合わせる）ing on the struggles of amputees, and the 質 of services 利用できる to them, 同様に as other 問題／発行するs such as 半導体素子 pan 解雇する／砲火／射撃s, police サイレン／魅惑的なs, male nannies, 安全な children's playgrounds, waste pickers in Cambodia;

b. Panorama ? I worked as a 上級の 生産者 mak ing programmes called 'First Say' 関心ing 問題／発行するs such as Clinton's 告発, European working time 指示的な and Prince Charles 50th birthday; This was the 旗艦's （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 for the 数字表示式の channel 'Choice' on the BBC. My 役割 伴う／関わるd producing, 研究ing scripting, directing and 現在のing.

c. Travel programmes ? I was a presenter on Summer Holiday, Wish You Were Here and Travelog;

d. The General ? I was a presenter on this programme based in Southampton General Hospital which was broadcast live five days a week;

e. Pebblemill ? 冷気／寒がらせる Out with Heather series and Croatian 文書の

As について言及するd 以前, before I met Paul, I was speaking all over Europe and was considered one of the 最高の，を越す ten 女性（の） public （衆議院の）議長s in Europe. I would speak on the same 法案 with 著名な individuals such as 示す McCormack, Neil Armstrong and others. I 命令（する）d a 料金 範囲ing from £10,000 to £25,000 for a one hour speech ….”

27. She thus 主張するd at paragraph 48:

“The 資産s I held at the time that I met Paul 含むd the に引き続いて:

a. A penthouse flat in Piccadilly 価値（がある） だいたい £500,000;

b. A 所有物／資産／財産 on Cross Street in Brighton, 価値（がある） £250,000.

c. I rented a 5 bedroom barn in Hampshire, at a cost of £750.00 per month. I had 持続するd a London apartment and a country 所有物／資産／財産 since 1992. An example of this is 大（公）使館員d….

d. I also owned a Green Mercedes, a Saab, and then a Rover as, I was sponsored by Saab and Rover. I also had my own driver, Trevor, and a 解放する／自由な Saab リムジン ….

e. I often lent money to friends, as I could afford to do so. An example of such 貸付金s is shown in my Form E.

I was 豊富な and financially 独立した・無所属 in my own 権利 事前の to our marriage.”

28. I have to say I cannot 受託する the wife's 事例／患者 that she was 豊富な and 独立した・無所属 by the time she met the husband in the middle of 1999. Her problem 茎・取り除くs from the 欠如（する） of any 文書の 証拠 to support her 事例／患者 as to the level of her 収入s.

I do not 疑問 her かかわり合い to charitable 原因（となる）s. She is 熱烈な about them, 特に those that 伴う／関わる working for, and with, amputees. The DVDs shown to me in 法廷，裁判所 amply 耐える that out.

I do not 疑問 that she modelled 首尾よく and was a public （衆議院の）議長. But the 調査 in this 事例／患者 of her 資産s and 収入s as at 1999 when the parties met do not 耐える out her 事例／患者.

29. The penthouse flat in Denman Street was not 価値（がある） £500,000 in 1999. She sold it on 20 March 2001 for £385,000 after the London 所有物／資産／財産 market had risen 大幅に since 1999.

She did not in 1999 own the 所有物／資産／財産 in Cross Street in Brighton. That was not bought until March 2000 when she gave up her 所有物／資産／財産 近づく King's Somborne in Hampshire.

30. During her cross-examination she 主張するd for the first time that in 新規加入 to 所有物／資産／財産 資産s she had £2m-£3m in the bank. No について言及する of such 資産s was made in her affidavit. There is no 文書の 証拠 to support that 主張. During the 審理，公聴会 she was asked 繰り返して to produce bank 声明s, which she said she thought she had in Brighton, to 立証する this （人命などを）奪う，主張する. No bank 声明s were ever produced.

31. The first 税金 return that the wife has been able to produce is for the year ending 5 April 1999. The 歳入 has not been able to 供給（する） any 事前の 税金 return. However her 税金 returns for the years ending 5 April 1999 and thereafter to 2006 are in the papers. Her 甚だしい／１２ダース turnover and 逮捕する 利益（をあげる） 宣言するd for “事実上の／代理, modelling and public speaking” for the 税金 years 1999 to 2002 are, それぞれ (to the nearest £500) £62,000 and £11,500; £42,000 and £6000; £112,000 and £58,000; and £78,000 and £49,500. Thus her 税金 returns for 1999 and 2000 do not support the wife's 事例／患者 of very 重要な 収入s as 始める，決める out in her affidavit.

32. The wife's riposte is that much of her 収入s, which are not 含むd in the 税金 returns, were sent direct to charities of her 指名／任命. In her 証拠 she told me that as much as 8 0% or 90% of her 収入s went direct to charities. However, the wife had to 受託する in her cross-examination that there was no 文書の 証拠, for example letters from the 関連した charities, that her 料金s were sent direct to charities.

In her Answers to a Questionnaire of 6 February 2007 the wife, having been asked to 始める，決める out in a schedule the income earned by her and sent direct to charities for the years 1997 and 2000 inclusive, replied that she did not have the 記録，記録的な／記録するs requested to enable her to 完全にする a schedule. その上に, her 主張 that she gave away to charity 80% to 90% of her earned income is inconsistent with having £2m-£3m in the bank in 1999.

33. The wife 受託するd that had she had £2m to £3m in the bank in 1999 she is most likely to have put such a sum into an account 収入 利益／興味. But the 税金 returns do not 公表する／暴露する any 銀行利子 earned or only very small sums which are not 一貫した with 持つ／拘留するing £2m-£3m in a bank or banks. Moreover her 税金 returns 公表する／暴露する no charitable giving at all.

34. In March 2000 the wife bought a 所有物／資産／財産 in Cross Street in Brighton for about £250,000, using £200,000 paid to her as 補償（金） for the 傷害s arising out of her 事故 in 1993. There was no need therefore for her to touch the £2m-£3m in her bank account if such 存在するd.

However in May 2001 the wife 購入（する）d in her own 指名する 7, Western Esplanade in Hove i.e. Angel's 残り／休憩（する） for £750,000. On 18 May 2001 MPL 世帯, the husband's company, and the wife entered into a formal 合法的な 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 whereby it lent the wife £800,000, 利益／興味 解放する／自由な, 安全な・保証するd on Angel's 残り／休憩（する） in order for the wife to be able to buy it. The wife agreed to 返す the 貸付金 at £1000 per month from 1 July 2001 for a period of 25 years.

The 超過 of £50,000 was to be used to 改善する the 所有物／資産／財産. In September 2001 the husband 前進するd the wife another £150,000 to carry out refurbishments.

The 必然的な question was asked of the wife ? why the need for such a 貸付金 and 広告 vances if she had £2m-£3m in the bank? Even 許すing for some depletion in the bank balances over an 18 month period from 中央の 1999 to 早期に 2001, if she was as 豊富な as she made out there would have been no need for this 貸付金 or for a 貸付金 of such magnitude.