I've never paid much attention to McCartney or Mills, not being a huge Beatles fan (although I do like
Sergeant Pepper) and uninterested in sleb gossip.
But this thread got me interested enough to read the court judgment and, oh dear, what a sorry story. Mills doesn't come out of it looking good.
She argued that she had been independently wealthy before she and McCartney got together and that he'd controlled her and caused her to lose income. For that reason (among many others) she claimed money from him.
But in alleging this she got basic things wrong on her evidence, eg, when she'd bought a house, and what she'd sold it for. To be clear, this was affidavit evidence, not something she'd blurted out in the witness box. She had the opportunity to check.
The judge said her evidence was unreliable: she wasn't rich before, and her earnings had actually increased during her marriage.
Oh, and some years it was hard to tell because she hadn't filed tax returns. If you're earning heaps, you'd think that at least HMRC should know about it.
It's clear that almost all the properties concerned were clearly McCartney's and Mills had no fair claim on them.
She alleged McCartney was tight, and didn't support her charity work. The court found this was, as a simple matter of fact, wrong.
Her best claim was that she should be kept in something like the style she'd been accustomed to in her marriage. Which means McCartney wasn't tight.
The most misogynistic part of this is the idea what if Beauty puts her hand in the Beast's paw, the Beast is ungallant if he doesn't shower Beauty with gold and expect her to take away even more when she leaves. That's the only way anyone can say Mills was hard done by.