- McCartney, Mills judgment in full - Part 3
- Herald Sun
- 19/03/2008 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: admin ( 27 articles in 2008 )
30.During her cross-examination she asserted for the first time that in addition to property assets she had 2m-3m in the bank. No mention of such assets was made in her affidavit. There is no documentary evidence to support that assertion. During the hearing she was asked repeatedly to produce bank statements, which she said she thought she had in Brighton, to verify this claim. No bank statements were ever produced.
31.The first tax return that the wife has been able to produce is for the year ending 5 April 1999. The Revenue has not been able to supply any prior tax return. However her tax returns for the years ending 5 April 1999 and thereafter to 2006 are in the papers.
Her gross turnover and net profit declared for "acting, modelling and public speaking" for the tax years 1999 to 2002 are, respectively (to the nearest 500) 62,000 and 11,500; 42,000 and 6000; 112,000 and 58,000; and 78,000 and 49,500. Thus her tax returns for 1999 and 2000 do not support the wife's case of very significant earnings as set out in her affidavit.
32.The wife's riposte is that much of her earnings, which are not included in the tax returns, were sent direct to charities of her nomination. In her evidence she told me that as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings went direct to charities. However, the wife had to accept in her cross-examination that there was no documentary evidence, for example letters from the relevant charities, that her fees were sent direct to charities. In her Answers to a Questionnaire of 6 February 2007 the wife, having been asked to set out in a schedule the income earned by her and sent direct to charities for the years 1997 and 2000 inclusive, replied that she did not have the records requested to enable her to complete a schedule. Furthermore, her assertion that she gave away to charity 80% to 90% of her earned income is inconsistent with having 2m-3m in the bank in 1999.
33.The wife accepted that had she had 2m to 3m in the bank in 1999 she is most likely to have put such a sum into an account earning interest. But the tax returns do not disclose any bank interest earned or only very small sums which are not consistent with holding 2m-3m in a bank or banks. Moreover her tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all.
34.In March 2000 the wife bought a property in Cross Street in Brighton for about 250,000, using 200,000 paid to her as compensation for the injuries arising out of her accident in 1993. There was no need therefore for her to touch the 2m-3m in her bank account if such existed. However in May 2001 the wife purchased in her own name 7, Western Esplanade in Hove i.e. Angel's Rest for 750,000. On 18 May 2001 MPL Household, the husband's company, and the wife entered into a formal legal charge whereby it lent the wife 800,000, interest free, secured on Angel's Rest in order for the wife to be able to buy it. The wife agreed to repay the loan at 1000 per month from 1 July 2001 for a period of 25 years. The excess of 50,000 was to be used to improve the property. In September 2001 the husband advanced the wife another 150,000 to carry out refurbishments. The inevitable question was asked of the wife - why the need for such a loan and advances if she had 2m-3m in the bank? Even allowing for some depletion in the bank balances over an 18 month period from mid 1999 to early 2001, if she was as wealthy as she made out there would have been no need for this loan or for a loan of such magnitude.
35.By May 2002 the loan was "discharged". She paid the monthly 1000, and sold Cross Street and according to the husband paid off about 348,000 of the loan from a combination of the net proceeds of sale of Cross Street and monies from a modelling contract.
36.I find that the wife's case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated. 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. It is therefore connected to the issue of "compensation".
37.The next matter to be decided is whether the wife and the husband began cohabitating in March 2000 or, as the husband asserts, their committed relationship began upon marriage. It is common ground they met in May 1999 at the Pride of Britain Awards. He accepts he was immediately attracted to her. He later telephoned her and they began meeting. He made a donation to her charity of 150,000 in July. It is at that point the wife says they began dating. There is no dispute about that.
38.In August the husband took the wife to New York and showed her his holiday house at 11, Pintail, on Long Island which he had purchased in December 1998. The wife says that after that thereafter things started to get serious and they saw more and more of each other. By September 1999 they were spending 5 nights a week together, at hotels and thereafter at the husband's property called "The Forecastle" but usually referred to as "Lizzie", in Rye, which is a 3 bedroom cottage. In November 1999 the wife met the husband's children by Linda. Later he introduced her to his adopted daughter, who was Linda's daughter from her first marriage.
39.In January 2000 he took her on holiday to the Turks and Caicos Islands. On their return they continued to spend up to 5 nights a week at Lizzie.
40.In early March 2000 the wife gave up her property in Hampshire and moved to a property in Cross Street, Brighton to be nearer the husband. "This was around the time that Paul and I decided to move in together" (paragraph 20 of her affidavit of 7 February 2007 in relation to the parties' pre-marital relationship). It is said that the husband suggested trying to live together. From that point on the husband and she were only apart if one of them was abroad. They lived by then mostly in "Lizzie", a property of the husband in Rye or in the husband's property at 7, Cavendish Avenue in London.
41.The Christmas of 2000 was spent at Lizzie. In January 2001 they went for a whole month to India and whilst in Jaipur the husband "secretly" bought a sapphire and diamond engagement ring for the wife.
42.During 2000 and 2001 the husband was making his album "Driving Rain" and much of the recording was done in Los Angeles. The husband's travel agent, Mike Whalley found a property to rent at 9536 Heather Road in Beverley Hills.
43.In March 2001 the husband purchased that property and transferred it into Mr Whalley's name "temporarily for tax purposes, but that it would soon be transferred to me" (paragraph 32). It was never transferred into her name.
44.In February 2001 the wife sold her flat in Denman Street and in May 2001 purchased Angel's Rest. Cross Street was sold. But the wife says that she and the husband continued to live in Lizzie and visited Angel's Rest "only on occasion (sic)" (paragraph 33).
45.On 22 July 2001 the parties became engaged. The wife was given the ring that the husband had bought in India. In November 2001 the husband gave her a joint Coutts credit card.
46.On 14 June 2002 they were married. Their living arrangements remained the same. But in 2002 they began building "The Cabin" - a Norwegian style log cabin near the lake on the husband's estate of about 1500 acres at Peasmarsh in East Sussex.
47.The husband's evidence is contained in his affidavit of 25 January 2007. His case, broadly, is that they dated during 1999, 2000, 2001, became engaged in July 2001 and married in June 2002, whereupon the nature of their relationship changed.
48.The husband says that the wife did not give up her Hampshire property to live with him, because in March 2000, she bought Cross Street in Brighton. Furthermore having purchased Angel's Rest in May 2001 she decorated, furnished and insured it. He asserts that Angel's Rest was the wife's primary home.
49.After their engagement their relationship did "become more formal and settled, but the living arrangements did not change very significantly". They did not live as husband and wife.
31.The first tax return that the wife has been able to produce is for the year ending 5 April 1999. The Revenue has not been able to supply any prior tax return. However her tax returns for the years ending 5 April 1999 and thereafter to 2006 are in the papers.
Her gross turnover and net profit declared for "acting, modelling and public speaking" for the tax years 1999 to 2002 are, respectively (to the nearest 500) 62,000 and 11,500; 42,000 and 6000; 112,000 and 58,000; and 78,000 and 49,500. Thus her tax returns for 1999 and 2000 do not support the wife's case of very significant earnings as set out in her affidavit.
32.The wife's riposte is that much of her earnings, which are not included in the tax returns, were sent direct to charities of her nomination. In her evidence she told me that as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings went direct to charities. However, the wife had to accept in her cross-examination that there was no documentary evidence, for example letters from the relevant charities, that her fees were sent direct to charities. In her Answers to a Questionnaire of 6 February 2007 the wife, having been asked to set out in a schedule the income earned by her and sent direct to charities for the years 1997 and 2000 inclusive, replied that she did not have the records requested to enable her to complete a schedule. Furthermore, her assertion that she gave away to charity 80% to 90% of her earned income is inconsistent with having 2m-3m in the bank in 1999.
33.The wife accepted that had she had 2m to 3m in the bank in 1999 she is most likely to have put such a sum into an account earning interest. But the tax returns do not disclose any bank interest earned or only very small sums which are not consistent with holding 2m-3m in a bank or banks. Moreover her tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all.
34.In March 2000 the wife bought a property in Cross Street in Brighton for about 250,000, using 200,000 paid to her as compensation for the injuries arising out of her accident in 1993. There was no need therefore for her to touch the 2m-3m in her bank account if such existed. However in May 2001 the wife purchased in her own name 7, Western Esplanade in Hove i.e. Angel's Rest for 750,000. On 18 May 2001 MPL Household, the husband's company, and the wife entered into a formal legal charge whereby it lent the wife 800,000, interest free, secured on Angel's Rest in order for the wife to be able to buy it. The wife agreed to repay the loan at 1000 per month from 1 July 2001 for a period of 25 years. The excess of 50,000 was to be used to improve the property. In September 2001 the husband advanced the wife another 150,000 to carry out refurbishments. The inevitable question was asked of the wife - why the need for such a loan and advances if she had 2m-3m in the bank? Even allowing for some depletion in the bank balances over an 18 month period from mid 1999 to early 2001, if she was as wealthy as she made out there would have been no need for this loan or for a loan of such magnitude.
35.By May 2002 the loan was "discharged". She paid the monthly 1000, and sold Cross Street and according to the husband paid off about 348,000 of the loan from a combination of the net proceeds of sale of Cross Street and monies from a modelling contract.
36.I find that the wife's case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated. 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. It is therefore connected to the issue of "compensation".
37.The next matter to be decided is whether the wife and the husband began cohabitating in March 2000 or, as the husband asserts, their committed relationship began upon marriage. It is common ground they met in May 1999 at the Pride of Britain Awards. He accepts he was immediately attracted to her. He later telephoned her and they began meeting. He made a donation to her charity of 150,000 in July. It is at that point the wife says they began dating. There is no dispute about that.
38.In August the husband took the wife to New York and showed her his holiday house at 11, Pintail, on Long Island which he had purchased in December 1998. The wife says that after that thereafter things started to get serious and they saw more and more of each other. By September 1999 they were spending 5 nights a week together, at hotels and thereafter at the husband's property called "The Forecastle" but usually referred to as "Lizzie", in Rye, which is a 3 bedroom cottage. In November 1999 the wife met the husband's children by Linda. Later he introduced her to his adopted daughter, who was Linda's daughter from her first marriage.
39.In January 2000 he took her on holiday to the Turks and Caicos Islands. On their return they continued to spend up to 5 nights a week at Lizzie.
40.In early March 2000 the wife gave up her property in Hampshire and moved to a property in Cross Street, Brighton to be nearer the husband. "This was around the time that Paul and I decided to move in together" (paragraph 20 of her affidavit of 7 February 2007 in relation to the parties' pre-marital relationship). It is said that the husband suggested trying to live together. From that point on the husband and she were only apart if one of them was abroad. They lived by then mostly in "Lizzie", a property of the husband in Rye or in the husband's property at 7, Cavendish Avenue in London.
41.The Christmas of 2000 was spent at Lizzie. In January 2001 they went for a whole month to India and whilst in Jaipur the husband "secretly" bought a sapphire and diamond engagement ring for the wife.
42.During 2000 and 2001 the husband was making his album "Driving Rain" and much of the recording was done in Los Angeles. The husband's travel agent, Mike Whalley found a property to rent at 9536 Heather Road in Beverley Hills.
43.In March 2001 the husband purchased that property and transferred it into Mr Whalley's name "temporarily for tax purposes, but that it would soon be transferred to me" (paragraph 32). It was never transferred into her name.
44.In February 2001 the wife sold her flat in Denman Street and in May 2001 purchased Angel's Rest. Cross Street was sold. But the wife says that she and the husband continued to live in Lizzie and visited Angel's Rest "only on occasion (sic)" (paragraph 33).
45.On 22 July 2001 the parties became engaged. The wife was given the ring that the husband had bought in India. In November 2001 the husband gave her a joint Coutts credit card.
46.On 14 June 2002 they were married. Their living arrangements remained the same. But in 2002 they began building "The Cabin" - a Norwegian style log cabin near the lake on the husband's estate of about 1500 acres at Peasmarsh in East Sussex.
47.The husband's evidence is contained in his affidavit of 25 January 2007. His case, broadly, is that they dated during 1999, 2000, 2001, became engaged in July 2001 and married in June 2002, whereupon the nature of their relationship changed.
48.The husband says that the wife did not give up her Hampshire property to live with him, because in March 2000, she bought Cross Street in Brighton. Furthermore having purchased Angel's Rest in May 2001 she decorated, furnished and insured it. He asserts that Angel's Rest was the wife's primary home.
49.After their engagement their relationship did "become more formal and settled, but the living arrangements did not change very significantly". They did not live as husband and wife.
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here