Сегодня, во вторник 18 марта, Хизер Миллс, бывшая жена знаменитого музыканта сэра Пола Маккартни, вновь отправилась в суд. После того, как вчера Верховный суд обязал Маккартни выплатить ей 24,3 миллиона фунтов стерлингов, Миллс намерена оспорить в апелляционном суде постановление, разрешающее публикацию в СМИ всех документов по бракоразводному процессу.
Хизер Миллс хочет самостоятельно добиваться пересмотра этого решения. Она подчеркивает, что в материалах бракоразводного процесса есть сведения о ее личной жизни, а также данные о том, в какое учебное заведение ходит ее 4-летняя дочь Беатрис и другие сведения о ребенке.
Судя по вчерашним заявлениям, Миллс намерена настаивать на отмене решения суда по публикации материалов процесса, прежде всего, указывая на нарушение прав своей несовершеннолетней дочери.
Не исключено, что в итоге будет дано разрешение на публикацию всех материалов этого скандального бракоразводного процесса, за исключением сведений, прямо затрагивающих Беатрис, дочь Пола Маккартни и Хизер Миллс.
А тем временем агенство Associated Press уже опубликовало полный текст соглашения между экс-супругами:
-----------------------------------------------
Text of statement released by the Family Court on the financial settlement for Heather Mills in her divorce from Paul McCartney:
This is a summary of the judgment handed down today (17 March 2008). It is not a summary of every issue in the judgment. This summary forms no part of the judgment. The court ruled that the judgment should be published but upon Ms. Mills' application granted a stay of such publication pending her appeal to the Court of Appeal.
1. The fundamental issue was what financial provision should be made for Ms. Mills. She sought an award of almost 125 million pounds ($250 million). Sir Paul proposed that the wife should exit the marriage with assets of 15.8 million pounds ($31.6 million) inclusive of any lump sum award.
2. The judge decided that the husband should pay the wife a lump sum of 16.5 million pounds ($33 million) which together with her assets of 7.8 million pounds ($15.6 million) (which include her current properties) means that she exits her marriage with total assets of 24.3 million pounds ($48.6 million) inclusive of a deemed figure of 500,000 pounds ($1 million) referable to her overspending in the period of separation.
3. The judge found that the total value of all the husband's assets, including his business assets, was about 400 million pounds ($800 million). There was no evidence at all before him that he was worth 800 million pounds ($1.6 billion).
4. The judge found that although the parties met in 1999 and formed a relationship, the parties did not cohabit from March 2000 but did so from the date of the marriage (11 June 2002). The parties separated in April 2006. The length of the marriage was just under four years.
5. The judge refused to permit either party to raise as an issue the alleged conduct of the other on the broad ground that it was irrelevant.
6. The judge, in undertaking the exercise prescribed by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, decided that the needs of the wife were a factor of magnetic importance.
7. The lump sum of 16.5 million pounds ($33 million) is made up of a sum of 14 million pounds ($28 million) as the capitalized figure for the wife's income needs, which the judge assessed at 600,000 pounds ($1.2 million) per annum, and a sum of 2.5 million pounds ($5 million) for the wife to buy a property in London.
8. Financial provision for Beatrice consists of a periodical payments order of 35,000 pounds ($70,000) per annum, the husband agreeing to pay for her nanny and her school fees.
9. The court made an order in the following terms:
Save for the release of the judgment and Order dated 17 March 2008 the Wife and the Husband and any persons acting on their behalves are strictly prohibited from publishing, disclosing, or in any way revealing without the consent of the other, the evidence, correspondence, transcripts, judgments or Orders in the proceedings concerning (a) the child of the family, (b) the main suit, (c) the cross-applications for ancillary relief, and (d) any marital confidences. If consent is not forthcoming then the party seeking publication shall be entitled to seek the permission of a Family Division Judge to do so.
10. The judge expressed his confidence that the media would respect the privacy and confidentiality of the Children Act and ancillary relief proceedings, including evidence and submissions (oral and in writing) given within both sets of proceedings.
