Saturday, March 22, 2008

Sir Paul McCartney svindlad pa 48.6 miljoner dollar.

Heater Mills bevisas vara en lognare, lycksokare och en rad andra saker. Har kommer ett utdrag ur rattegangsprotokollet. Mer foljer inom en snar framtid. AB

Approved Judgment

8. The husband’s case on financial provision for the wife is summarised at paragraph 9
of the opening note of Mr Mostyn QC as follows:
“We submit that fundamentally this is a straightforward case.
Because of H’s enormous pre-marital wealth and because of the
brief duration of this marriage W’s claim should be determined
by reference to the principle of need alone. This is not a case
where the principle of sharing of the “marital acquest” is
engaged at all. Nor is it a case where the principle of
compensation will arise. W’s needs fall to be fairly assessed,
not predominantly by reference to the standard of living during
the marriage. W’s award should be reduced to reflect her post-
separation misconduct. That misconduct is based on three
distinct episodes as explained in our Conduct Note.”
9. The wife’s case cannot be so succinctly summarised. By the time of the parties’ first
meeting in May of 1999 the wife says that she was wealthy and independent with, as
she told me in evidence, properties and cash totalling between £2m and £3m. She
earned her living as a TV presenter, a model and public speaker. She began to cohabit
with the husband from March 2000 which led seamlessly into marriage and thus the
relationship lasted 6 years. This is denied by the husband. The wife says that the
husband’s attitude towards her career was one of constriction such that the
opportunities for the development of her career fell away during their relationship.
He dictated what she could or could not do. She thus seeks compensation for the loss
of her career opportunity in that during their cohabitation and subsequent marriage
she forewent a lucrative and successful career. She seeks an award commensurate
with being the wife of, and the mother of the child of, an icon. She places great
weight on the contributions she says she has made to counselling the husband’s
children by his former marriage and to the husband’s professional career. She asserts
that his assets are worth in excess of £800m and that she is entitled to share in the
“marital acquest”. Finally, she asserts that throughout their marriage and after their
separation the husband behaved in such a way that it would be inequitable to
disregard and that his conduct should be reflected in the award.
10. During the course of this judgment I shall have to determine certain matters of fact.
11. The major factual issues as to the history of their relationship that I must determine
are these. First, at the time the parties met, was the wife a wealthy and independent
person? This is linked to the third issue. Second, did the parties cohabit from March
2000 or from the date of the marriage? The relevance of this issue is to the length of
their relationship and to the further issue of “marital acquest”. Third, did the husband
constrict the wife’s career after cohabitation (whether at March 2000 or June 2002)?
This is relevant to the issue of “compensation” for an allegedly lost or restricted
career of the wife.
12. I shall also have to determine issues of fact concerning the husband’s and the wife’s
assets, the wife’s proposed income needs, the wife’s expenditure between October
2006 and December 2007, and the wife’s earning capacity.
13. Many of the issues of fact involve a head on conflict between the evidence of the wife
and the husband, in which I shall also have to examine the relevant and important
documents. It is therefore appropriate that I should briefly say something at this stage
about the evidence of each of the parties.
14. The wife is a strong willed and determined personality. She has shown great fortitude
in the face of, and overcoming, her disability. I refer to the loss of her left leg below
the knee. As I shall show she is a kindly person and is devoted to her charitable
causes. She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous,
15. The husband’s evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself
moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent,
accurate and honest.
16. But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife’s evidence. Having
watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having
given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under
(and in conducting her own case) 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. 

Approved Judgment McCartney v Mills McCartney 

Mer foljer inom nagra dagar. 

No comments: