Full text: the divorce judgment | Mills rant outside court

Heather Mills claimed she was "so, so happy" today after being awarded £24.3 million in her divorce with Sir Paul McCartney – despite the award being one fifth of what she originally sought.

In an emotional statement often laced with anger on the steps of the High Court, Ms Mills said the former Beatle had offered her £15.8 million, so she considered today's award of £24.3 million to be a victory. She did, however, claim for £125 million.

Speaking to a throng of reporters, Ms Mills said that she would not appeal against the judgment, but would contest Mr Justice Bennett's decision to make the entire verdict public, which she said Sir Paul had pressed for to make himself look "generous".

Legal experts said that the judge's decision to grant full publicity, however, was partly because of Ms Mills's own decision to represent herself, making it less likely that she would seek advice on her public statements.

Launching a scathing attack on the legal establishment and her estranged husband, Ms Mills hotly disputed the judge's decision to revise the ex-Beatle's assets down from £800 million to £400 million. She claimed that this was designed to reduce her award and was part of a plot to prevent litigants-in-person succeeding in court.

"These people are in a club, it’s like they want to stay together and they don’t want a litigant in person to do well, but he could not award me and my daughter such a low sum because it was actually impossible," she said.

"What the judge also said, as well as saying we never lived together, he also said that Paul is only worth £400 million and that is what he said he believes him to be worth.

"Everybody knows he has been worth £800 (million) for the last 15 years. And I wasn’t allowed any access to any of our accounts, nothing. I wasn’t allowed to look at what we spent, where we went, I was locked out of every home - I won’t go into all the horrific details of what has happened because I’m just glad it’s over."

Of the settlement, she said: "Sir Paul offered me £15.8, all in including properties, and we got ... I don't remember the figures because the most important thing is just to get this over and done with."

Handing down his judgment, Mr Justice Bennett imposed a resolution of £16.5 million in cash and £7.8 million in assets – but included in this amount £500,000 that Ms Mills had already spent during their separation, which he said was excessive.

Also in the judgment, Sir Paul was ordered to pay £35,000 per annum for the couple's daughter Beatrice, plus her nanny and her school fees.

Due to Ms Mills's appeal against the decision to release the whole judgment, he added that he would only release a summary at this stage.

Ms Mills claims that she had wanted to keep the full judgment secret but that Sir Paul wanted to make it public. "Paul appealed, said he wanted it public. He has always wanted it public because he wants to make it look like he is this generous Sir Paul."

Asked if Sir Paul had behaved cruelly during the divorce, she said: "I can't say that for the sake of my daughter. My sister does."

Despite her personal attacks – which included lashing out at the media and Sir Paul's lawyer Fiona Shackleton – Ms Mills repeatedly claimed she was happy with the verdict.

"I’m so glad it’s over. It was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and Beatrice’s future and all the charities I plan on helping," she said.

Sir Paul left the High Court without making any comment, and had not yet issued any statement this afternoon.

Legal experts claimed that the verdict was generally fair, did not set any startling legal precedents, and would leave Sir Paul satisfied. They said it would have been much smaller if no children had been involved.

"When you have a mother with a young child, any judge would want to make sure that her needs are covered," Alex Carruthers, a divorce specialist said.

That was echoed by Carol Ellinas, a partner at the London-based Bross Bennett firm. "Justice has been done. She was always going to end up wealthy. But at the same time, the judgment has not dented his fortune. If you work out the percentage, she gets a tiny per cent," she said.

Mr Carruthers said that Ms Mills's decision to defend herself – she urged other divorcées to follow her example today – had probably contributed to the judge's decision to publish the verdict in full, which she opposed.

"The fact that Heather Mills was acting for herself may have had some part to play in the judge's decision to make it public, as she would not have had the benefit of legal advice telling her what she could and could not talk about afterwards.”

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO