Persevere. I know it's long, but it's very well written. It just gets better and better.

Seems relevant to me;

67. The wife was therefore constrained to accept that, if the overall period 1999 to 2006 is considered solely looking at her tax returns, her income improved during the relationship with the husband.

84. I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife’s career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite, as he says. He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as I find them do not in any way support her claim. “Compensation” therefore does not arise.

The husband can satisfy the award the wife is seeking without any difficulty at all. Mr Mostyn says it is wholly a needs case. Again I cannot now, for obvious reasons, make a finding about that. But there is some truth in what he says. The wife’s needs are likely to be the dominating issue at the final hearing. The amount of the assets in this case are so vast that the husband will be able to pay the lump sum awarded to the wife without there having to be a detailed inquiry into the extend of his assets.
He He.

143. In my judgment it is unnecessary to go so far as to characterise what the wife attempted as fraudulent. However, it is not an episode that does her any credit whatsoever. Either she knew or must have known that there were no loans on Thames Reach, yet she tried to suggest that there were and thereby obtain monies by underhand means.
144. Her attempts when cross-examined to suggest that she may have got in a muddle and confused this property with others, to my mind, had a hollow ring. In the light of the husband’s generosity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife’s behaviour distinctly distasteful. In any event, as Mr Mostyn rightly submitted, it damages her overall credibility.
What a cow!

162. The wife’s total expenditure in the 15 month period was £3,715,683. If legal and forensic accountancy fees of £1,003,313 and £675,000 of property refurbishment are stripped out then the wife has spent in the 15 months period £2,037,376 on herself. Then if £775,000 is deducted from that, it is submitted that the wife has overspent by £1,262,376 in that period.

191. I accept that since April 2006 the wife has had a bad press. She is entitled to feel that she has been ridiculed even vilified. To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character. She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews in October and November 2007. Nevertheless the fact is that at present she is at a disadvantage.

9. Nevertheless, as I have said, the wife is (or at least was) prepared to accept £50m in lieu of a claim for £125m. That, in my judgment, can mean only one of two things; either the claim by the wife for £125m is a reasonable claim, in which case the enormous drop of £75m to £50m is inexplicable, or, the claim for £125m is and was unreasonable, indeed exorbitant.

212. It is based on a number of matters. She claims for seven fully staffed properties with full-time housekeepers in the annual sum of £645,000. She claims holiday expenditure of £499,000 p.a. (including private and helicopter flights of £185,000), £125,000 p.a. for her clothes, £30,000 p.a. for equestrian activities (she no longer rides), £39,000 p.a. for wine (she does not drink alcohol), £43,000 p.a. for a driver, £20,000 p.a. for a carer, and professional fees of £190,000 p.a. All these items Mr Mostyn submits are theoretically recognised heads of expenditure but “extraordinarily exaggerated”.
213. He, next, submits that the following items are not only hugely exaggerated but also impermissible in principle. They are £542,000 p.a. for security, £627,000 p.a. for charitable donations, £73,000 p.a. for the cost of business staff and £39,000 p.a. for helicopter hospital flights.

249. The conduct complained of by the wife can be summarised as follows. Prior to their separation at the end of April 2006 the husband treated the wife abusively and/or violently culminating in the unhappy events of 25 April 2006 upon which, in her oral submissions, she placed great reliance. He abused alcohol and drugs. He was possessive and jealous. He failed to protect the wife from the attention of the media. He was insensitive to her disability. Furthermore, it is alleged that post separation the husband manipulated and colluded with the press against the wife and has failed to enforce confidentiality by his friends and associates. The wife blames the husband for the leaking to the media of her Answer and Cross-Petition which alleges in strong terms unreasonable behaviour by the husband against her. The husband has failed to provide her with a sufficient degree of security from the media and generally he has behaved badly.

282. The wife, it was submitted, had violently assaulted the husband’s character, a person with a very high profile. It was as damaging to this husband as a serious physical assault upon him. He was being branded by the wife as a hypocrite and a monster.

286. I am satisfied that the wife’s attempt to introduce the alleged conduct of the husband prior to the end of April 2006 should be disallowed.
Macca;
“I do believe that Heather’s misconduct since our separation, her concerted campaign to destroy my reputation through leaks, lies and breaches of confidentiality, should be taken into account by the Court to reduce the award she could otherwise have expected to receive. It will be for my legal representatives to explain this further.”

Just bits that 'jumped out' at me, but I come back to my original assessment....
...The beeyotch is mental!

To be fair i'm suprised they gave her anything. Some of those requests are mind boggling.

I also found it highly amusing that she thought 35k for a 4 year old Per year which didn't even include school and care (On top of the millions she got) was not enough.

Shit even i don't get paid 35k a year.

Plus if she was any sort of Charitable woman she'd give most of it away.

Yeah, well, if she's going to give any of it away, she doesn't need it for herself and so it shouldn't be taken into account! However, the judge allowed for the fact that she apparently liked to give to charity (even though there was no evidence of it on her tax returns!) and, although she's not strictly entitled to it, allowed her a goodly sum for her to donate to charity. Macca's not going to appeal on that point and good on him. It's like paying her to go away...

Poor old Paul.
Maybe he could re-write some Beatles numbers;

She milked me, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.

All you need is cash.

Sponge me do.

Get Lost.

(Meal)Ticket to Ride

We can't work it out

While my bank manager gently weeps

Let's do it in the press

Baby I'm a poor man

Baby you're a rich (wo)man!

But nothing beats "Get Lost."

Hee Hee.

Baby you can't have my car.

Aint she sweet......NOT!

Got to get you out of my life.

I thought Macca rawked at Live 8.

does she really only have one leg?!

Yup.

anyone see the programme last night on HM? She is quite clearly a crazy woman!..

Watched a bit of it and got bored of the spin attempts.

Yup, she's Hopping Mad.

With regards to the money being "tainted," if Paul McCartney was forced to pay me one squillion pounds just for being an unlovable scumbag, taint would not be on my mind.

Additionally, as a law student I simultaneously love and hate reading judgments. Lord Diplock's are often a good laugh. (Am I thinking of Diplock or someone else? I don't know.)