Her earnings:
""However her tax returns for the years ending 5 April 1999 and thereafter to 2006 are in the papers. Her gross turnover and net profit declared for “acting, modelling and public speaking” for the tax years 1999 to 2002 are, respectively (to the nearest £500) £62,000 and £11,500; £42,000 and £6000; £112,000 and £58,000; and £78,000 and £49,500."
Claims:
"Heather Mills budgeted £499,000 for holidays - including £35,000 for helicopter flights, £242,000 for accommodation, £72,000 for commercial flights and £150,000 for private flights.
The extraordinary figures make up part of her demands for her divorce settlement and were partially based on the fact that she has always flown first class since she was 25 and believed that she and her daughter Beatrice should continue doing so.
Sir Paul had accepted this in his evidence but the judge said that the amounts were "much, much too high in every respect."
"In the absence of any sensible proposal by the wife as to her income needs I must do the best I can on the material I have," he continued.
"If the wife feels aggrieved about what I propose to do, she only has herself to blame.
"If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly overeggs 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."
Mr Justice Bennett awarded her £150,000 for holidays which included money for dining out, entertaining and other interests while in the UK. "
--
"The judge said all Ms Mills' evidence indicated she felt she had a right to live as luxoriously as her husband but that he could not see why she should continue to do so after their separation."
He says: "In my judgment the wife's attitude in her Form E, her open offers, her oral and written evidence, and her submissions is that she is entitled for the indefinite future, if not for the whole of her life, to live at the same “rate” as the husband and to be kept in the style to which she perceives she was accustomed during the marriage.
"Although she strongly denied it her case boils down to the syndrome of “me, too” or “if he has it, I want it too”...
"It must have been absolutely plain to the wife after separation that it was wholly unrealistic to expect to go on living at the rate at which she perceived she was living.
This could be a nice precedent actually. It would have been better though if she got £2-3 mln only for her daugher - she can't spent any on herself.
More hillariou stuff here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...e_id=1770&ct=5
""However her tax returns for the years ending 5 April 1999 and thereafter to 2006 are in the papers. Her gross turnover and net profit declared for “acting, modelling and public speaking” for the tax years 1999 to 2002 are, respectively (to the nearest £500) £62,000 and £11,500; £42,000 and £6000; £112,000 and £58,000; and £78,000 and £49,500."
Claims:
"Heather Mills budgeted £499,000 for holidays - including £35,000 for helicopter flights, £242,000 for accommodation, £72,000 for commercial flights and £150,000 for private flights.
The extraordinary figures make up part of her demands for her divorce settlement and were partially based on the fact that she has always flown first class since she was 25 and believed that she and her daughter Beatrice should continue doing so.
Sir Paul had accepted this in his evidence but the judge said that the amounts were "much, much too high in every respect."
"In the absence of any sensible proposal by the wife as to her income needs I must do the best I can on the material I have," he continued.
"If the wife feels aggrieved about what I propose to do, she only has herself to blame.
"If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly overeggs 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."
Mr Justice Bennett awarded her £150,000 for holidays which included money for dining out, entertaining and other interests while in the UK. "
--
"The judge said all Ms Mills' evidence indicated she felt she had a right to live as luxoriously as her husband but that he could not see why she should continue to do so after their separation."
He says: "In my judgment the wife's attitude in her Form E, her open offers, her oral and written evidence, and her submissions is that she is entitled for the indefinite future, if not for the whole of her life, to live at the same “rate” as the husband and to be kept in the style to which she perceives she was accustomed during the marriage.
"Although she strongly denied it her case boils down to the syndrome of “me, too” or “if he has it, I want it too”...
"It must have been absolutely plain to the wife after separation that it was wholly unrealistic to expect to go on living at the rate at which she perceived she was living.
This could be a nice precedent actually. It would have been better though if she got £2-3 mln only for her daugher - she can't spent any on herself.
More hillariou stuff here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...e_id=1770&ct=5
Comment