So, what did the judge overseeing the Paul McCartney/Heather Mills divorce think of the not so happy couple?
Well, Mr Justice Bennett said he thought that Macca "expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest".
Meanwhile, he thought the former Mrs Macca was "strong-willed and determined", that she was a "kindly person and devoted to her charitable causes", adding that "she has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination". However, he went on to say that, while he had made "every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under", 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". Mills, needless to say, was not impressed with Bennett's summary.
We know all this because Mills' attempts to have Bennett's full judgement relating to the divorce case kept private were unsuccessful. As reported yesterday, all parties agreed to a summary statement regarding the divorce settlement being released on Monday but, while McCartney had requested the full ruling to be made public, Mills objected, claiming there were facts in it regarding the couple's daughter Beatrice and that publishing it would invade her privacy. However, two appeal judges disagreed and the full document was promptly issued to the press.
Among the claims made by Mills during the divorce trial which Bennett said he found it hard to accept were her statements regarding her financial situation prior to meeting McCartney. She told the court that in 1999 she owned two properties, a London penthouse worth approximately £500,000 and a Brighton property worth £250,000 - presumably a bid to show that Mills had a successful career before her marriage, which she had given up, to a certain degree, for Macca. But Bennett disputed the valuation of the London property, saying it had sold for just £385,000 in 2001, despite considerable property price rises since 1999. The Brighton property, meanwhile, had been bought by Mills after meeting McCartney in 1999.
Claims regarding Mills' savings and annual income were also disputed, with Bennett saying there was no evidence of her having, as she claimed, £2-3 million in the bank, while her tax returns did not show big earnings. He concluded: "I have to say I cannot accept the wife's case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the husband in the middle of 1999". Bennett also noted that, despite Mills claiming that she gave 80% of her earnings to charity even before meeting Macca, that her tax returns did not show that that was the case. He remarked: "The tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all".
As we already knew from Monday's summary judgement, Bennett also disputed Mills' calculations of McCartney's wealth, which Mills put at £800 million while Bennett reckons the real figure is closer to £400 million. The court papers show that while investments in property and art have helped Macca achieve considerable wealth and security, and his touring activity can bring in millions at a time, his income from the Beatles legacy is probably somewhat less than some have in the past assumed, which is probably not surprising given the famously bad deals done on the Beatles behalf back in the early days, and the loss of the Lennon/McCartney song catalogue to ATV in 1969, which was in turn subsequently sold to Michael Jackson in the mid-eighties. In his submission to the courts, McCartney admitted that his 2002 and 2006 solo albums were "not profitable" and that his primary source of income was live music, where fans would primarily pay to hear him play songs from his Beatles and Wings days.
As well as playing down his personal fortune, McCartney's submission to the divorce proceedings also suggested that, despite the wealth (still vast, of course, even if less than some assumed) he preferred to live a relatively modest life. The suggestion is that it was money issues that Mills and Macca first started to fall out over. One area in particular was security - something Mills stepped up considerably once married to McCartney and certainly after daughter Beatrice was born.
McCartney, it seems, didn't like excessive security arrangements, and not just because of the cost. He told the judge: "Unless on tour, my older children had very little security. They all attended local state schools. It is not healthy for a child to have security 24/7. It sets them apart from their peers and makes them an object of curiosity and ridicule. Such children live in gilded cages". Adding that he never had any security guards when living with Linda McCartney and their children because "the general farm employees kept a lookout for anything suspicious," he added: "Since the summer, I have, to my great relief, been able to revert to the security arrangements which were in force for most of my 'celebrity' life before late 2003, when Beatrice was born and when Heather began her campaign to increase security".
As previously reported, McCartney was ordered to pay Mills £24.3 million, a fifth of what she'd asked for but £10 million more than he had offered. The settlement splits up into a £14 million lump sum, an additional £2.5 million to buy a London property and £7.8 million in assets.