At the High Court the parties were unable to agree a settlement at a private hearing before Mr Justice Coleridge, who previously made legal history when he awarded Beverley Charman £48 million, the highest court award made in a divorce case. Mr Justice Coleridge’s role that day last week was to assist the parties with their negotiations and to give his indication as to what the fair parameters of settlement in the case might be. Coleridge is known for his complete recognition of equality and one can speculate that his indication for Ms Mills’ award was at the higher end of those parameters.
It is rumoured that negotiations broke down primarily due to Paul McCartney’s insistence upon the inclusion of a “confidentiality clause”. Although clauses of this kind are common, particularly in multimillion pound settlements, they are normally restricted to details of the financial settlement itself. However, it would appear that the desired clause would be to prevent Heather Mills speaking about the marriage in its entirety. This would have the effect of preventing her from making money in the future from media deals.
The case has now been listed for a trial in front of Mr Justice Bennett and Heather Mills needs to think carefully about her position. Bennett is much more of a traditionalist than Coleridge and perhaps likely to have a lower figure in mind; but he has no power to impose a confidentiality clause on the parties. Consequently in order to obtain his desired silence agreement, McCartney’s offer to settle must be sufficient not only to equal what Ms Mills may be awarded in court but also to compensate her for the loss of future deals.
To date, the parties’ silence has merely heightened media interest and increased the speculation and the number of uncorroborated comments by “friends”. This begs the question: what is the true benefit of the clause in any event?
Hayley McCormack and Claire Piggot