Mills hoped to be paid £125m from the Beatles' singer's fortune.
And it has emerged she said she needed over £3million to fund her life of luxury.
The judgement says: "In her letter of 31 January 2008 the wife computes her reasonable needs for herself and Beatrice at £3,250,000 p.a. which amounts on a Duxbury capitalised basis to £99,480,000."
The document added: "She seeks between £8m and £12.5m for a home in London, £3m to purchase a property in New York, £500,000 to £750,000 to purchase an office in Brighton, a transfer to her of a mortgage in favour of the husband over her sister?s (Fiona) Hove property, transfer of property order re a Southampton property owned by the husband in which Sonya Mills lives, and relief in respect of chattels.
Honest
"Further, the wife asks the court 'to place a significant monetary value on compensation for loss of earnings, contribution and conduct.'"
The judge described Sir Paul McCartney?s evidence as ?balanced?.
Sir Paul
Sir Paul
Big
He said: ?He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.?
However, Mr Justice Bennett said: ?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, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case), 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.?
Mr Justice Bennett said Mills was a ?strong-willed and determined personality? who had shown great fortitude in overcoming her disability.
?She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination.?
Advertisement
The ruling also cast doubts over Mills' claims that she donated 80 per cent of her earnings to good causes.
Mr Justice Bennet said: "In her evidence she told me that as much as 80 per cent or 90 per cent of her earnings went direct to charities. However, the wife had to accept in her cross-examination that there was no documentary evidence, for example letters from the relevant charities, that her fees were sent direct to charities."
And the Judge said he could not accept Mills? case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the former Beatle in the middle of 1999.
?I find that the wife?s case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated.
"The assertion that she was a wealthy person in 1999 is, of course, the first step in her overall case that her career, which in 1999 she says was one producing rich financial rewards, was thereafter blighted by the husband during their relationship.?
The Judge added: "By the time of the parties? first meeting in May of 1999 the wife says that she was wealthy and independent with, as she told me in evidence, properties and cash totalling between £2m and £3m.
"I have to say I cannot accept the wife?s case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the husband in the middle of 1999. Her problem stems from the lack of any documentary evidence to support her case as to the level of her earnings."
The Judge added: "Her tax returns for 1999 and 2000 do not support the wife?s case of very significant earnings as set out in her affidavit.
Mucca rant
Mucca rant
"Furthermore, her assertion that she gave away to charity 80 per cent to 90 per cent of her earned income is inconsistent with having £2m-£3m in the bank in 1999.
"The wife accepted that had she had £2m to £3m in the bank in 1999 she is most likely to have put such a sum into an account earning interest.
"But the tax returns do not disclose any bank interest earned or only very small sums which are not consistent with holding £2m- £3m in a bank or banks. Moreover her tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all."
The judge said Mucca was 'her own worst enemy' and she claimed she could not get work because she was vilified by the press.
But the judge concluded: "I accept that since April 2006 the wife has had a bad press. She is entitled to feel that she has been ridiculed even vilified. To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character."
The judge backed Sir Paul?s assertion that their ?true and settled relationship? began upon marriage in June 2002 and not, as Mills asserted, in March 2000.
Click here for slideshow
In assessing their relationship before their marriage, the judge said the background was of importance.
?The husband?s wife, Linda, had died in 1998. Their marriage endured for some 30 years. Repeatedly in his evidence the husband described how, even during his relationship with the wife in 1999 to 2002, he was grieving for Linda.
?I have no doubt the husband found the wife very attractive. But equally I have no doubt that he was still very emotionally tied to Linda.?
The judge said it was ?not without significance? that until Sir Paul married Mills, he wore the wedding ring given to him by Linda.
?Upon being married to the wife, he removed it and it was replaced by a ring given to him by the wife.
?The wife, for her part, must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband. I think this may well have warped her perception, leading her to indulge in make-believe. The objective facts do not support her case.?
Danger
The full judgment was made public after the former model?s application for an appeal was refused today.
Mills, who was represented by David Rosen, was not in court to hear two Court of Appeal judges rule that the decision by the divorce hearing judge, Mr Justice Bennett, to publish the full judgment was within his discretion and could not be challenged.
Mr Rosen, who sat with Mills throughout the six-day hearing last month as she represented herself, told the judges today that she was worried that security arrangements involving the estranged couple?s four-year-old daughter, Beatrice, would be made public if the whole of the judgment was published.
?Miss Mills believes her daughter will be put in real danger. It is most disturbing,? he told Lords Justices Thorpe and Wall.
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread
Facebook
Twitter