Props to John Bolch of Fam­ily Lore for point­ing out the newly released judg­ment of the court. Sev­eral pas­sages absolutely leapt off the pdf:

“14. The wife is a strong willed and deter­mined per­son­al­ity.  She has shown great for­ti­tude in the face of, and over­com­ing, her dis­abil­ity. …  As I shall show she is a kindly per­son and is devoted to her char­i­ta­ble causes.  She has con­ducted her own case before me with a steely, yet cour­te­ous, determination. ”

Not so bad so far …

” 15. The husband’s evi­dence was, in my judg­ment, bal­anced.  He expressed him­self mod­er­ately though at times with jus­ti­fi­able irri­ta­tion, if not anger.  He was con­sis­tent, accu­rate and hon­est.”

Good news for Macca fans.

16. But I regret to have to say I can­not say the same about the wife’s evi­dence.  Hav­ing watched and lis­tened to her give evi­dence, … I am dri­ven to the con­clu­sion that much of her evi­dence, both writ­ten and oral, was not just incon­sis­tent and inac­cu­rate but also less than can­did.  Over­all she was a less than impres­sive witness. 

Or in non-legal terms: “Liar liar, false leg on fire”.

97. In my judg­ment the pic­ture painted by the hus­band of the wife’s part in his emo­tional and pro­fes­sional life is much closer to real­ity than the wife’s account. 

99. I have to say that the wife’s evi­dence that in some way she was the husband’s “psy­chol­o­gist”, even allow­ing for hyper­bole, is typ­i­cal of her make-belief … I wholly reject her account that she rekin­dled the husband’s pro­fes­sional flame and gave him back his confidence.  

101. In her final sub­mis­sions the wife described her con­tri­bu­tion as “excep­tional”.  I reject her case.  I am afraid I have to say her case on this issue is devoid of real­ity.  The husband’s evi­dence is far more persuasive.

Oh boy, spouses cross exam­in­ing each other. This ain’t gonna end well…

143. In my judg­ment it is unnec­es­sary to go so far as to char­ac­terise what the wife attempted as fraud­u­lent.  …  Either she knew or 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. 

…  In the light of the husband’s gen­eros­ity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife’s behav­iour dis­tinctly distasteful. 

HH Judge Ben­nett: “You sleazy bitch, Mills  …”