Philip Norman:The divorce hearing began on 11 February 2008, in court number 34 of the Royal Courts of Justice and, like its two preludes, was closed to the press and public. At its outset the judge, Mr Justice Bennett, warned sternly that any further leaks could result in prosecution for contempt of court. It still risked turning into a litigational sieve, thanks to Heather’s libel actions against the Daily Mail and Evening Standard (for printing the leaked claims from her cross-petition) which were due to start in open court any time now. And if either side in the divorce appealed against Bennett’s judgement, that, too, could be fully reported. In addition to the Prince of Wales’s solicitor, Fiona Shackleton, Paul’s courtroom team comprised Nicholas Mostyn QC–known as ‘Mr Payout’ for his success on behalf of wives suing affluent husbands–and a junior counsel, Timothy Bishop. But Heather was no longer represented by Anthony Julius, Shackleton’s highly effective opponent in the Charles–Diana divorce. She had dismissed Julius after the failure to reach a private settlement at the preliminary hearings–and now faced a bill of around £2 million, for which his firm, Mishcon de Reya, was on the point of suing her. Instead, she chose to conduct her own case, supported by what British law in such situations terms ‘McKenzie Friends’: her sister, Fiona, a British solicitor named Michael Rosen and an American attorney, Michael Shilub. So, as well as being cross-examined by Paul’s barristers, she would be directly cross-examining him.
Oops! This image does not follow our content guidelines. To continue publishing, please remove it or upload a different image.
Her claim amounted to around £125 million, far outstripping Charles and Diana and almost tripling insurance magnate John Charman’s recent £48 million payout to his wife, Beverly, to date the largest divorce settlement in British legal history. She estimated her ‘reasonable needs’ for herself and Beatrice as £3.25 million per year. These included £499,000 for holidays, £125,000 for clothes, £30,000 for ‘equestrian activities’ (although she no longer rode), £39,000 for wine (although she did not drink alcohol), £43,000 for a driver, £627,000 for charitable donations, £73,000 for a business staff and £39,000 for helicopter flights to and from hospitals. The most important component was round-the-clock security for Beatrice, on which she claimed to have already spent almost £350,000 from her own pocket and estimated at £542,000 per year in the future. As well as her present homes in Hove and Pean’s Wood, she claimed two American ones of Paul’s: 11 Pintail Lane, Amagansett, and the ‘Heather House’ in Beverly Hills, which she said had always been promised to her. She was seeking £8–12 million to buy a home in London, £3 million to buy a property in New York and £500,000–£750,000 to buy an office in Brighton, plus title to the houses Paul had provided for her sister, Fiona, and cousin, Sonya. In all, that would give her seven fully-staffed properties with full-time housekeepers costing £645,000 annually. She further asked the court to ‘place a significant monetary value on compensation for loss of earnings, contribution [to his career] and [his] conduct’.
Paul had come back with an offer worth around £15 million, giving her Angel’s Rest, the Hove seafront property, Pean’s Wood, the inland one, and both the Fiona and Sonya houses. He would also pay ‘a balancing lump sum’ on condition that ‘certain art’ (the paintings by him that adorned Angel’s Rest) was returned to him. His provision for Beatrice, over and above her school fees, health insurance and ‘reasonable extras’, would be £35,000 per year plus £20,000 for a nanny, to continue until she was 17 or finished secondary education, whichever came sooner, and the security costs for her and her mother for two years at a limit of £150,000 per year. His lawyers claimed this was not a case where marital assets should be shared because of the wife’s contribution to the husband’s success. He had been enormously wealthy before meeting Heather and their relationship of only short duration. Indeed, one of the bones of contention was whether they had cohabited for four years or six. According to Heather, they had begun to do so when Paul bought Angel’s Rest in March 2000, whereas he said it had not been until their marriage in June 2002. Each side accused the other of misconduct and leaking the sensational claims in Heather’s cross-petition which had found their way onto news agency fax machines in October 2006. She stood by her accusations that Paul had treated her abusively and/or violently, abused drugs and alcohol, been jealous and possessive and insensitive towards her disability and failed to provide her with proper security and protection from the media. He countered that her ‘leaks, lies and breaches of confidentiality’ since their separation had been part of ‘a concerted campaign to portray herself as a victim and him as a hypocrite and a monster’ and were in themselves tantamount to an act of violence.
