Date 1 May 2008
In this article Marilyn Bell and Keith Docking look at the recent high profile of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills divorce and ask what lessons can be learnt from this case.
One of the major issues of contention in the Mills/McCartney divorce was Paul McCartney’s wealth. As has been well documented. Heather Mills claimed he was worth £800 million and the Judge found he was worth “only” £400 million. The Judge was invited to look at Heather’s claim purely in terms of needs generously applied.
This concept of need in cases involving the super rich does cause some consternation to the average person in the street. For example, Heather sought £499,000 per annum for holidays, but was “only” allowed £150,000 by the Judge. These matters were of course all relative when Paul’s expenditure set out before the court exceeded £4 million a year. The Judge, therefore, when coming to his figure of £16.5 million plus various properties which gave a total of £24.3 million, had assessed what lump sum Heather required to meet her financial needs in the future.
The other main headline maker in relation to this case was Heather's decision to dispense with her legal team and represent herself. Miss Mills sought £125 million and ultimately received closer to £25 million. The Judge was critical of Heather Mills approach which could not be justified on the facts of the case and implied that had she been more reasonable the outcome might have been different.
“If as she has done a litigant fragrantly over eggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance then he or she is likely to find that this court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget”, the judge stated.
In summary therefore whilst Heather Mills may have saved a significant sum in lawyers fees by going it alone she may in fact have suffered financially as a result. It is fair to say however that final settlements on divorce do not have to be a battleground that ultimately ends up in court. There are alternatives such as mediation, roundtable meetings and collaborative law.
Collaborative law is a process whereby Paul and Heather, and their respective solicitors would have signed a Participation Agreement. This is a commitment to resolving all matters between them without recourse to the court. There would have been a series of meetings where both solicitors would have been present together with Paul and Heather. It is a total commitment by the solicitors. If the process breaks down then the solicitors can’t issue court proceedings. Paul and Heather would both have had to find new solicitors.
It is an ideal process where the couple want to end up on good terms. It also gives an opportunity, where financial information is complicated, for there to be open discussions between both parties in the presence of their lawyers.
It is important to be willing to compromise. The amount of money sought by Heather, and the sums offered by Paul were so far apart when they arrived at their final court hearing the collaborative process may never have worked. However, the one thing, said unanimously, by those who have gone through the collaborative process is that it does not leave behind it the bad feeling that must surely follow the McCartney’s divorce.
Marilyn Bell and Keith Docking are Joint Heads of the Family Department at SA Law. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact them on 01727 798067. Alternatively you can contact them by email at marilyn.bell@salaw.com or keith.docking@salaw.com.