This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/entertainment/7302736.stm

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Mills gave 'inaccurate' evidence Mills gave 'inaccurate' evidence
(about 5 hours later)
Heather Mills' evidence in her divorce case with Sir Paul McCartney was "inconsistent, inaccurate" and "less than candid", according to the judge.Heather Mills' evidence in her divorce case with Sir Paul McCartney was "inconsistent, inaccurate" and "less than candid", according to the judge.
Mr Justice Bennett's High Court ruling has been revealed in full after Ms Mills was told she could not appeal against its publication.Mr Justice Bennett's High Court ruling has been revealed in full after Ms Mills was told she could not appeal against its publication.
She wanted it kept secret because she said it contained details that could her affect her daughter's security. Ms Mills told the BBC she thought the judgement was "outrageous".
The decision came a day after a High Court judge awarded Ms Mills £24.3m. The full ruling was published a day after she was awarded £24.3m at the High Court in London.
The judge determined the final figure after the couple failed to reach an agreement in court last month. JUDGEMENT IN FULL class="" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_03_08_mccartney_mills.pdf">Read the full judgement in Mills-McCartney case [267k] Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader href="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html">Download the reader here The judge determined the final figure after the couple failed to reach an agreement in court last month.
BREAKDOWN OF MILLS' £125M CLAIM £3.2m per year for herself and BeatriceProperties in Los Angeles and New YorkBetween £8m and £12.5m for a home in London£3m to purchase a New York home£500,000 to £750,000 to buy a London officeMonetary value on compensation for loss of earnings The former model had asked for the full text to be kept private - but two Court of Appeal judges rejected her argument that her daughter's security could be put at risk.
Ms Mills was not in court to hear two Court of Appeal judges rule that divorce hearing judge Mr Justice Bennett's decision to publish his entire ruling could not be challenged. Ms Mills was not present in court.
The judge described Ms Mills in his ruling as having "a strong-willed and determined personality", and said she was also a "kindly person and devoted to her charitable causes". In the full report, Mr Justice Bennett described Ms Mills as having "a strong-willed and determined personality", and said she was also a "kindly person and devoted to her charitable causes".
"She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination," he stated. BREAKDOWN OF SIR PAUL'S £15.8M OFFER Costs, not exceeding £150,000 per year, for security would be met for two yearsAnnual, index-linked payments of £35,000 for Beatrice until she is 17 or ends secondary educationNanny would be employed for no more than £25,000He would discharge costs for school fees, uniforms and reasonable extrasLump sum for the return of some art "She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination," he said.
Sir Paul's evidence was described as "balanced".Sir Paul's evidence was described as "balanced".
"He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest," Mr Justice Bennett said."He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest," Mr Justice Bennett said.
BREAKDOWN OF MCCARTNEY'S £15.8M OFFER Costs, not exceeding £150,000 per year, for security would be met for two yearsAnnual, index-linked payments of £35,000 for Beatrice until she is 17 or ends secondary educationNanny would be employed for no more than £25,000He would discharge costs for school fees, uniforms and reasonable extrasLump sum for the return of some art
The judge wrote that he gave Ms Mills "every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under".The judge wrote that he gave Ms Mills "every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under".
But he added: "I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid".But he added: "I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid".
"Overall she was a less than impressive witness," he said."Overall she was a less than impressive witness," he said.
'In danger' BREAKDOWN OF MILLS' £125M CLAIM £3.2m per year for herself and BeatriceProperties in Los Angeles and New YorkBetween £8m and £12.5m for a home in London£3m to purchase a New York home£500,000 to £750,000 to buy a London officeMonetary value on compensation for loss of earnings Ms Mills said the decision to publish the address of her houses had affected the security of her and her daughter, Beatrice.
David Rosen, who represented her in court on Tuesday, said: "Miss Mills believes her daughter will be put in real danger. It is most disturbing." The ruling questioned Ms Mills' statement that she owned a penthouse flat in Piccadilly worth "approximately £500,000" when she met Sir Paul, along with a Brighton property "worth £250,000".
Mr Rosen confirmed that the ruling marks the end of Ms Mills' appeal against the publication. "I have to say I cannot accept the wife's case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the husband in the middle of 1999," said Mr Justice Bennett.
After yesterday's settlement, Ms Mills said: "I'm not appealing against the judgment because it's not worth it. He said the penthouse flat "was not worth £500,000 in 1999", adding she sold it in 2001 for £385,000 after the London property market had risen substantially since 1999.
"I'm appealing against the publication of it because it has so many details of me and my daughter in it." "She did not in 1999 own the property in Brighton. That was not bought until March 2000," he said.
Lump sum Sir Paul McCartney likened his divorce to "hell" last yearHe also questioned her claim that she had £2m-£3m in the bank at this time, adding: "There is no documentary evidence to support that assertion."
Following the ruling, Ms Mills will receive £14m for herself and £2.5m to buy a house in London. And her claim to have had "very significant earnings as set out in her affidavit" were not supported by her tax returns, the ruling said.
Sir Paul will pay for Beatrice's nanny and school fees, and give the four-year-old £35,000 a year. The judge awarded a lump sum of £16.5m and assets of £7.8m. The judge added that her tax returns "disclose no charitable giving at all", despite Mills saying she gave "as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings ... direct to charities".
The settlement equated to £17,000 for every day of the couple's marriage. Commenting on that claims, Ms Mills said it was because her accountant "hadn't ticked the tax return box".
The judge found the total value of Sir Paul's assets was about £400m. Ms Mills had sought £125m and been offered £15.8m.The judge found the total value of Sir Paul's assets was about £400m. Ms Mills had sought £125m and been offered £15.8m.
Sir Paul, 65, and Ms Mills, 40, got married in 2002, but they split four years later, blaming media intrusion into their private lives.Sir Paul, 65, and Ms Mills, 40, got married in 2002, but they split four years later, blaming media intrusion into their private lives.