Heather Mills: FAIL - Page 7
But I have no doubt that in the wife's mindset, there was an element that she was going to spend (in the 15 month period) in order thereby to hope to prove that a budget in excess of £3m p.a. put forward in her Form E in September 2006 was justifiable. [Again, she overspent to make it look like she needed more money to live on than she actually needed]
The personal expenditure included £349,862 allegedly paid on security.No invoices were ever produced, despite repeated request of the wife during the final hearing and despite promises by her to bring them. The wife explained in her cross-examination that she was paying for her security in cash “so Paul can't find out who they areâ€. However she said that she would allow me to see the invoices.
She told me that she was afraid that if the husband saw the invoices he would leak details of the security arrangements for her and Beatrice. Nevertheless she told me she would produce the invoices to me.
She never did. Thus, although she has annotated her bank statements identifying the items which she says are payments for security, not one single invoice or receipt has been produced to verify those payments.
I accept that the wife has spent sums on security but I am not satisfied that she has in fact spent nearly £350,000 in security in the 15 months period.I consider her reason for her unwillingness for the husband to see any invoices is a smokescreen to seek to try and explain away her failure to produce them. I reject completely the suggestion that the husband would in some way jeopardise the security of the wife and Beatrice.
Her case is that there should not be such a disparity between her lifestyle and that of the husband such as could or might impact upon Beatrice.She seeks to contrast her, reasonable she would say, demands with the large and diverse property holdings of the husband. She is deeply involved in charitable work and needs an office from which to conduct her charitable, as well as business, activities.
In my judgment, her case overlooks the fact that all of the husband's properties were acquired before their marriage, in some cases long before, with the exception of “Heather Houseâ€.
If the wife was being truthful in her evidence to the Senior District Judge in June 2007 (which I assume she was) – see paragraph 192 below - she will not be working in Los Angeles (or indeed the USA) and thus has no need of a home there. So far as an office is concerned, there is plenty of room for one in the spacious property at Pean's Wood. [A 14-acre estate]
In my judgment, it is important for the wife that she is assisted to recover and thereafter develop her earning capacity. Continued on the next page
Follow Technorati