The remaining silence over the details of the McCartneys' divorce case will have a lasting impact and will matter to millions of peopel who await a clear voice on divorce law, says Trevor Lee.

----------

In the Mills McCartney divorce case, the figures speak for themselves.

They speak not only of the personal relationship between a model and a musician, but also of the confusion that still reigns over matrimonial law when it comes to the division of assets upon the breakdown of marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation.

It is important to note that we currently have only a summary of judgment. This forms no part of the judgment itself, which has been frozen for publication pending an appeal by Heather Mills, who opposes the release of details concerning their daughter Beatrice.

What we do know is that while Heather Mills sought an award of almost £125 million, Paul McCartney proposed his wife should exit the marriage with assets of £15.8 million inclusive of any lump sum award.

We also know that in the run-up to the case legal experts speculated that, based on recent cases, Heather Mills could expect up to £60 million of Sir Paul's fortune. This was on the basis that Sir Paul's fortune was an estimated £800 million, rather than the £400 million that the judge deemed to be more realistic.

However, the actual settlement is for a lump sum of £16.5 million, which together with her assets of £7.8 million means that she exits the marriage with total assets of £24.3 million.

How could the estimates vary so widely and how was the final figure established?

Over the past decade there have been significant changes to the way in which the courts assess divorce cases and address the division of assets.

Ten years ago, an award would usually be granted based upon the "reasonable requirements", generally of the wife, to an attempt to base settlements upon a "yardstick of equality".

This elusive term became current following the case of White versus White, which concerned a couple who jointly built up a multi-million pound business.

It resulted in a House of Lords appeal upholding the view that women who work alongside their husbands should be entitled to an equal share of the spoils.

Today, the preferred approach is to offer "a fair share of the available property", which takes into account the financial needs of both parties, compensation to address any economic disparities that arise as a result of the separation, and the principle of granting an equal share unless there is good reason not to.

This originally came about after the case of McFarlane versus McFarlane. Here the wife had a promising career as a solicitor with Freshfields before having children, and at the end of her 16-year marriage she was awarded 50 per cent of the assets plus £250,000 per annum by way of maintenance.

However, while this approach sounds simple in principle, it hides a multitude of complications, leaving a series of unresolved enigmas in its wake.

If we chart the progress of recent cases we can see that the percentage of assets awarded to the wife varies widely from approximately 22 per cent to 50 per cent. The key question for all practitioners and parties in divorce law cases is what do the courts take into consideration to reduce the award from the 50 per cent mark?

The landmark case of Miller versus Miller suggests that the length of the marriage is important, and this is likely to have had a significant bearing on the Mills versus McCartney case.

In the Miller case, due to the fact that the marriage was childless and under three years in duration, the wife was awarded £5 million, which seems significant yet was only around 14 per cent of her husband's fortune.

This is not far below the settlement to Heather Mills which represents approximately 17 per cent of Sir Paul's fortune.

It is interesting that in a way these cases can be seen as a step back towards the husband from that 50 per cent benchmark.

However, examining the length of the marriage only scratches the surface of unresolved issues. For example, we are told that conduct will only be taken into account in the most exceptional cases, but how do we establish the watershed of what conduct it is equitable to disregard and what conduct it is not?

This has produced disparate rulings in past cases. In the current suit, despite the media frenzy surrounding the actions of Sir Paul and Heather McCartney, the judge refused to let either party raise the issue of alleged conduct.

Other thorny issues include the definition of "matrimonial property".

Does post separation accrual qualify? Is the family home to be considered "matrimonial property" even if it was acquired before the relationship began? Is genius, if it can be recognised, to be taken as a kind of asset?

Unusually, the judge in the Mills versus McCartney case also deemed that the needs of Heather Mills were of magnetic importance.

Therefore of the £16.5 million lump sum, approximately £14 million is the capitalised figure for what he deemed to be her income needs of £600,000 per annum. What was the reasoning behind this decision?

Unless the full details of the Mills McCartney case are released, we cannot know the factors that contributed to the final settlement, nor its implication to future judgments.

Yet the history of the past decade shows that the gaps and inconsistencies of divorce settlements are often filled out on a case by case basis.

These landmark, big money cases are played out in the court and can influence cases across the board and set new precedents for fair settlements.

One thing is for certain - if ever there was a time where case law needed to clarify the criteria for dividing assets upon the breakdown of marriage it is now.

Details of the monetary settlement may suppress the speculation of those interested from a celebrity lifestyle point of view, but those who are involved in divorce cases from a professional and personal point of view can only hope that we are soon allowed to dig deeper into the true details and significance of the case to shed some light over an uncertain area of the law.

* Trevor Lee is former senior partner at West Midlands law firm Challinors and now consultant in the family finance team of the divorce department. Challinors, incorporating Cartwright & Lewis, operates from offices in West Bromwich, Birmingham city centre, Edgbaston and Harborne.