• Her previously successful career was “constricted” by her husband after they married.
Miss Mills had frantically tried to keep the full judgment secret, pleading with two High Court judges yesterday that it could leave her vulnerable to “crazed” Beatles fans.

*********** READ THE FULL JUDGEMENT NOW! ***********

But when this argument was subsequently rejected, the full divorce transcript was officially published on the internet.

The Fantasist
Mr Justice Bennett painted a picture of Miss Mills as a fantasist whose marriage to Sir Paul McCartney gave her a “warped perception leading her to indulge in make-belief”.

Much of her claims were “devoid of any reality”. She was an “explosive and volatile character” who was “her own worst enemy”. The judge went on to describe Miss Mills as “a less than impressive witness” whose “ wholly exaggerated” evidence was “not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid”.

He said claims she made in court that she was responsible for re-invigorating Sir Paul’s musical career were “typical of her make-belief”.

In contrast, Mr Justice Bennett described Sir Paul McCartney’s evidence as “balanced”.

He said: “He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.” But he added: “I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife’s evidence.

“Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case), I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness.”

The judge explained that the further into the relationship she got, the less reliable Miss Mills’ version of events.

“The wife for her part must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband,” he said.

“I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-belief. The objective facts do not support her case.”

Attention Seeker
Mr Justice Bennett agreed with Sir Paul’s assertion that his second wife was an attention seeker.

“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. “In my judgment, the picture painted by the husband of the wife’s part in his emotional and professional life is much closer to reality than the wife’s account.

“The wife, as the husband said, enjoys being the centre of attention. Her presence on his tours came about because she loved the husband, enjoyed being there and because she thoroughly enjoyed the media and public attention.

“I am prepared to accept that her presence was emotionally supportive to him, but to suggest that in some way she was his ‘business partner’ is, I am sorry to have to say, make-belief.”

Financial affairs
The judge said he could not accept Miss Mills’s case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the former Beatle in the middle of 1999. “I find that the wife’s case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated,” he said.

“The assertion that she was a wealthy person in 1999 is, of course, the first step in her overall case that her career, which in 1999 she says was one producing rich financial rewards, was thereafter blighted by the husband during their relationship.” Miss Mills claimed that at the time she already had £2 to 3million in the bank. But the judge said: “No mention of such assets were made in her affidavit. There is no documentary evidence to support this assertion.”

Miss Mills has tried to claim she is delighted with her £24.3million payout. But as the judgment makes clear, she had demanded much higher sums.

In papers lodged with the court, she demanded an annual income of £3,250,000 a year, which would mean a cash investment of £99,480,000.

She also wanted between £8million and £12.5million for a home in London, £3million for a property in New York, and between £500,000 and £750,000 for an office in Brighton.

She also claimed for seven fully-staffed properties with full-time housekeepers in the annual sum of £645,000, she sought £499,000 a year for holidays, including private and helicopter flights of £185,000, £125,000 annually for her clothes and £30,000 for equestrian activities, although the judge pointed out that she no longer rides.

Miss Mills, who does not drink alcohol, claimed £39,000 a year for wine, £43,000 for a driver, £20,000 for a carer and professional fees of £190,000.

She also claimed annual sums of £542,000 for security, £627,000 for charitable donations, £73,000 for the cost of business staff and £39,000 for helicopter hospital flights.

Referring to her claim for charity expenditure, Mr Justice Bennett said: “I accept that the wife is very committed to charities and their causes but the degree of such proposed expenditure is, I am sorry to have to say, ridiculous.”

He ruled that £150,000 “for not only holidays but also when in the UK (not on holiday) dining out, entertaining, and other interests, is appropriate”.

Charity 'donations'
Miss Mills’s riposte when the judge noted that her earnings were in fact not “significantly” high at the time when she met Sir Paul, was that 80 to 90 per cent of her wages went “directly to charities”.

But the judge concluded that there was no documentary evidence to support this claim. “Moreover, her tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all,” said the judge.

Her influence
The judgment revealed the astonishing claim that Miss Mills was Sir Paul’s counsellor and was responsible for re-invigorating his musical career. But these were simply fanciful notions, the judge argued, and he thus rejected them.

“I have to say that the wife’s evidence that in some way she was the husband’s ‘psychologist’, even allowing for hyperbole, is typical of her make-belief,” said Mr Justice Bennett.

“I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband’s professional flame and gave him back his confidence.”

Bugging Paul
It is revealed how Sir Paul accused his wife of bugging their phone calls and then leaking damaging details to the Press to smear him. She was also accused of leaking damaging claims about his allegedly violent behaviour towards her and criticising him in television interviews in breach of a court order not to do so.

Nicholas Mostyn QC, Sir Paul’s barrister, told the court: “In 2006 the wife illegally bugged the husband’s telephone, in particular a call between him and his daughter Stella in which Stella made very unflattering comments about the wife.

“It is further said the wife subsequently leaked the intercepted material to the press so as to discredit him.

“Second, on October 17, 2006 the wife, or someone acting on her behalf, leaked to the media some or all of the contents of her answer and cross-petition which contained untrue and distorted allegations against her husband in orders to discredit him.

“Individually and collectively these actions, it is said, represent a deliberate attempt by the wife to ruin the husband’s reputation.”

Lavish holidays
Miss 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 made up part of her demands for her divorce settlement. They 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”.

He continued: “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.

“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 over-eggs 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.

Paul's wealth
Mr Justice Bennett said Sir Paul is “extraordinarily talented” and has been famous throughout the world for many years. “During his marriage to Linda, the husband’s wealth was accumulated. By the time he met the wife in 1999 he was fabulously wealthy by even the standards of the very rich.

“He had accumulated valuable paintings and artwork, and properties in England and the USA. His business enterprises were extensive.”

His real estate was valued at £33,979,000 and he had £15,159,000 in bank accounts in the US and UK.

His investments were valued at £34,319,000 and other assets, including art, musical instruments, jewellery, furniture, motor vehicles and horses, were valued at £32,269,000. Sir Paul also had business interests valued at £240,920,000 and a pension pot of £36,288,000.

The judge said his total assets amounted to nearly £400million and his net income for the next year was estimated at £5,357,000. Heather told the court: “I am at a severe disadvantage compared to Paul.”

But the judge said: “I think she overplays her hand. Her association with the husband advanced, not stultified, her career.”

Sir Paul told the judge his case was that the wealth built up during the marriage was approximately £39.6 million – the result of market growth in the value of the pre-marital assets and from performing on
tour.

In contrast, the judge said the source of the wife’s assets was “very largely as a result of the husband’s generosity towards her”. The judge said that one of the properties in her name, Thames Reach, never had a mortgage on it. But Miss Mills had requested £480,000 to pay off the amount outstanding.

Mr Justice Bennett said: “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.

“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.”

His love for Linda
The judge spoke candidly of the former Beatle’s love for his first wife, Linda. “Their marriage endured for some 30 years. Repeatedly in his evidence, the husband described how even during his relationship with the wife in 1999 to 2002 he was grieving for Linda.

“I have no doubt the husband found the wife (Miss Mills) very attractive. But, equally, I have no doubt that he was still very emotionally tied to Linda.”

He continued: “It is not without significance that until the husband married the wife he wore the wedding ring given to him by Linda. “Upon being married to the wife, he removed it and it was replaced by a ring given to him by the wife.

Mills' 'career'
Miss Mills claimed Sir Paul curtailed her lucrative modelling career and “forbade” her from taking up a one-year job worth £1million to model Marks & Spencers bras in April 2001.

Sir Paul told the court that he and his wife had discussed the offer together and had decided it was not appropriate for her to be seen modelling bras.

Miss Mills also accused the former Beatle of blocking her hosting the Larry King show and ending her “dream of hosting the biggest TV show in the world and what would have been a huge and lucrative career move for me.”

After making several appearances on the programme, she claimed Sir Paul had allowed her do one show but no more as that would make her a “bad mother”.

Sir Paul rebuffed her accusations again, but accepted that his wife had told him she had been offered a more permanent job co-hosting the Larry King show.

He said they had decided not to relocate to Los Angeles as it would have a detrimental effect on their daughter, Beatrice.

Overall, the judge concluded that Sir Paul had actually supported – and furthered – Miss Mills’s career despite her claims to the contrary.

He described the former Beatle’s statement that “no one tells the wife what to do” as “compelling”.

Heather told the court: “Paul is worth £800million. But in the judge’s view: “There is absolutely no evidence at all to support that figure or any figure anywhere near it.”

Her image
The judge said he accepted that since April 2006, Miss Mills had 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.

MORE COVERAGE OF THE McCARTNEY DIVORCE ON EXPRESS.CO.UK:

** READ THE FULL JUDGEMENT NOW...

** VIDEO: SEE HEATHER'S RANT...

** HEATHER 'MISCARRIED' SIR PAUL'S CHILD... ** MUCCA LETS FLY AT DIVORCE VERDICT...