London, Mar 19 : Heather Mills has been branded "a less than impressive witness," by the judge presiding over her and Sir Paul McCartney's divorce case.
Judge Hugh Bennett's opinion of Mills became known to one and all after he decreed that the ruling of the case be made public on Tuesday Mar 18.
Mills had tried to keep the verdict, which portrays her as a liar, from going public, however she was not successful in stopping it, the Sun reported.
In the settlement battle that went on, it was revealed that she had tried to con her ex-husband Sir Paul McCartney out of almost half a million pounds months before they split.
Mills had gone on a wild 15-month spending spree in the run-up to their divorce case, spending 3,715,683 pounds so that she could claim that it was how much she needed to live on.
Judge Hugh Bennett had awarded Mills 24.3million pounds of Paul's fortune, and on Tuesday Mar 18 his judgement was made public. According to him, Mills was "a less than impressive witness," and opined that her demands were "unreasonable, indeed exorbitant."
Bennett also condemned her over what Sir Paul's barrister Nicholas Mostyn QC described as "a fraudulent attempt to extract money from the husband."
He wrote that Mills was "not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid" in her testimony. He found that she was dishonest about donating 80 to 90 percent of her income to charity, and that "her tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all," E! Online reported.
Mucca, had tried to get 480,000 pounds paid into her NatWest bank account to settle four mortgages she claimed were owed on a property at Thames Reach, when in reality it had been bought for cash with Macca's money.
"She must have known that there were no loans on Thames Reach, yet she tried to suggest that there were and thereby obtain monies by underhand means," the Sun quoted judge Sir Hugh as saying.
"Her attempts to suggest that she may have got in a muddle to my mind had a hollow ring," he added.
"I find the wife's behaviour distinctly distasteful," he stated.
In a withering comment comparing Paul's character to hers, Sir Hugh found that McCartney "was consistent, accurate and honest."
"He was consistent, accurate and honest. I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife's evidence," he said.
"Overall she was a less than impressive witness," he added.
With paying Mills the lump sum, McCartney has also been ordered to pay 35,000 pounds a year in child support for the couple's four-year-old daughter, Beatrice, and to cover her school and childcare costs.
Heather on the other hand tried to clarify her position with McCartney, saying that she helped him to get back on track with his singing.
"I was his full-time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist," she insisted in court.
Sir Hugh sneered at her claims of having helped McCartney, calling it exaggeration, adding that she only had herself to blame for her shattered public image.
"Her case that she somehow single-handedly saved him was exaggerated," he stated.
"To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character," he said.
"She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews," he concluded.
Sir Hugh's 58-page ruling ended with a word of advice for anyone who puts forward "an excessive, indeed exorbitant, claim."
He declared they had only themselves to blame if the court awards much less than they expected.