Heather Mills: FAIL - Page 5
Mr Benia, the owner or controlling influence in that organisation, speaks in his statement of 24 November 2006 (which was admitted into evidence on behalf of the wife unchallenged) of the wife's tour being an “outstanding successâ€.
However Smart Talk was unable to offer the wife more dates for the 2006 season as Mr Benia found that the wife “was unable to commit in advance to future Smart Talk datesâ€.
Mr Benia says that the wife lost a lot of business not just with his, but other, organisations, basically because she was not accessible. He could not get a commitment from the wife for dates nor speedy responses he needed.
The wife blames the husband for her failure to commit. He was restrictive and discouraged her. The husband's evidence is that the wife's unreliability was not caused by him.
He was unable to explain why the wife did not commit herself when offered dates by Mr Benia. The husband, in my judgment, gave compelling evidence that no-one tells the wife what to do. [emphasis mine]
This accords with his written evidence that the wife is very strong willed. Indeed watching the wife give evidence and present her case she came across to me as strong willed and very determined. I have no doubt that had the wife really wanted to contract for dates through Mr Benia she would have done it and the husband would not have stood in her way.
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.
[Paul]Â agreed that the wife together with his family and friends had helped him through his grieving for Linda.He said that for about a year after Linda's death he was in a sad state and that the wife exhibited the normal reactions of any kindly person. He denied he had lost his confidence. Her case that in some way she single-handedly saved him was exaggerated.
He firmly said that she contributed nothing on the tours. She did not design sets or assist with the lighting. He had a team of specialists for all technical matters. He was shown a DVD where the wife appeared in the credits under “artistic coordinationâ€.He said that that was a favour to the wife, a romantic gesture.
He agreed she attended many of his concerts because the wife enjoyed being there and loved him.
Another DVD was shown in which the wife can be seen photographing the husband and his team on their private plane. She asserted that this was part of her work for the husband. The husband, I thought, in a telling comment, said that the wife liked to be the centre of attention and she enjoyed wielding a camera. He gave her full credit for the idea of the acrylic finger nail [Paul had worn his real nail down to the quick which made it difficult to play] which, he told me, was a brilliant idea.
I reject her evidence that she, vis-Ã -vis the husband, was anything more than a kind and loving person who was deeply in love with him, helped him through his grieving and like any new wife tried to integrate into their relationship the children of his former marriage. I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband's professional flame and gave him back his confidence.
In her final submissions the wife described her contribution as “exceptionalâ€. I reject her case. I am afraid I have to say her case on this issue is devoid of reality. The husband's evidence is far more persuasive.
As he has always accepted, he can pay any sum which the court considers appropriate as for financial provision for the wife. Nevertheless I find that the husband's total wealth amounts to approximately £400m. Continued on the next page
Follow Technorati