McCartney divorce settlement in line with well-established principles

The divorce of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills may have attracted a blaze of publicity and at times seemed quite extraordinary but in the end the proceedings were settled in accordance with well established legal principles.

Ms Mills sought a settlement of £125m but was awarded £24.3m - still a huge sum by any standards but far less than she wanted. She had based her claim on several factors including her assertion that she was entitled to compensation because the marriage had restricted her career. She also argued that she had made an exceptional contribution to the marriage and was entitled to a share in the growth in the couple’s wealth.

Sir Paul argued that because the marriage had only lasted four years and because he had accumulated most of his wealth before they met, the settlement should be decided purely on the principle of her needs and those of their daughter.

The judge, Mr Justice Bennett, said it would be unfair for Heather Mills to expect to live in the same manner after her divorce as she had during the marriage as Sir Paul had made most of his money before the couple’s relationship began. He also pointed out that her income had risen during the marriage rather than declined and so the question of compensation did not arise. The court also rejected her claim that her contribution to the marriage had been exceptional.

Sir Paul was ordered to pay a lump sum of £16.5m which together with other funds and property would give Ms Mills a total settlement of £24.3m.

The legal principles followed are well established but it does not mean that other spouses who stay at home while their partner creates the wealth will end up with only a small settlement. The court will take into account the length of the marriage and the contribution made by both parties.

In a notable case recently, Beverley Charman received £48m of the £130m fortune accumulated by her husband when the couple divorced. The key difference in that case was that both parties had entered the marriage with virtually nothing and she had supported him by staying at home and looking after the children leaving him free to concentrate on his career.

One other interesting point that emerges from the McCartney proceedings is the need for both parties to be open and reasonable. Mr Justice Bennett made it clear that he was not impressed by some of the claims made by Ms Mills. He said: "If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly over-eggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget."