News:

McCARTNEY (MILLS) –v- McCARTNEY – A WATERSHED CASE?

As Paul McCartney’s solicitor, Fiona Shackleton will testify, we matrimonial lawyers need to have a thick (and impermeable) skin sometimes. Nevertheless, Ms Shackleton will have now doubt taken comfort and satisfaction from the fact that she was instrumental in helping her client to resist Ms Mills’ varied and imaginative claims against Paul McCartney’s wealth.

It is clear from the judgement of Mr Justice Bennett that he preferred the evidence of Mr McCartney in almost all respects and considered that Ms Mills had “over-egged the pudding” when setting out her requirements.

The moral of the story is “do not sell yourself short but do not so exaggerate your claims that they bear no relationship to reality – to the extent that the Judge cannot see how your case is being presented”.

It is our view that the approach adopted by Heather Mills could have cost her as much as £25 million!.

Aside from the lurid headlines in the press, an important issue to the lawyers was Mr Justice Bennett’s very firm and clear dismissal of the parties’ cross-allegations of conduct. He did not consider that any of the allegations were sufficient to affect the outcome and went so far as to question whether they were made and pursued in order to support libel litigation which was being conducted separately.

Parties to matrimonial disputes often feel very aggrieved by the behaviour of the other spouse. Such behaviour may be morally and socially unacceptable but unless it is exceptional (and the bar is set very high) it will play no part in the resolution of a matrimonial financial dispute.

April 2008

go to: News Contents Page