quote:

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Heather Mills, the estranged wife of Paul McCartney, was granted nearly £25 million ($50 million) in her divorce proceedings with the former Beatle, she said Monday.

Mills said she will not appeal the award, but she will appeal the publication of the hearing transcript, which she said McCartney has asked for.

In an 11-minute statement to reporters outside the High Court after the verdict, Mills said she was pleased that the bitter divorce hearings had ended.

"I'm so glad it's over and it was an incredible result, in the end, to secure my and my daughter's future, and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping," said Mills, dressed in a khaki, green and blue suit with a bright red shirt.

Mills has established a career as a campaigner and charity worker since losing a leg in a road accident in 1993.

Judge Hugh Bennett awarded Mills, who represented herself, £24.3 million ($48.6 million), according to the court's release.

She had sought an award of nearly £125 million ($251 million), the court said. McCartney had proposed £15.8 million ($31.6 million), it said.

The judgment included £35,000 ($70,000) a year for the couple's 4-year-old daughter, Beatrice. Mills said she was unhappy with that amount because it isn't enough for school tuition, private security, or first-class airfare.

"He likes her to fly five times a year on holiday," Mills said of McCartney. "It's £17,000 for two people return (round-trip) first class, so that's obviously not meant to happen for her anymore. It's very sad."

According to the court's release, the award includes £600,000 ($1.2 million) a year for Mills and £2.5 million ($5 million) for her to purchase property in London.

Mills said she would appeal to stop the publication of the entire judgment because it contains private details about Beatrice and she doesn't want them released. The judge has granted permission for the litigants to speak publicly, she said. Watch how the McCartney/Mills court battle may not be over »

McCartney did not speak to reporters after the verdict.

Mills said that as a "litigant in person," or a litigant representing herself, the system worked against her at every turn.

"These people are in a club," she said. "It's like they want to stay together and they don't want to see a litigant in person doing well."

She said the judge did not agree with her on important details, including how long the couple lived together or even McCartney's personal wealth, which she estimated at £800 million ($1.6 billion). She said the judge estimated it to be half of that.

"I won't go into all the horrific details of what happened because I'm just glad it's over," Mills said. "I really hope now that me and my daughter can have a life and not be followed every single day, and that is why I've come out -- to give it closure."

McCartney and Mills failed to agree on a settlement ending their four-year marriage in divorce hearings last month, leaving the judge to decide the terms.

McCartney and Mills married in 2002 after meeting at a charity event.

At the time of their split in 2006, they described it as amicable, despite widespread reports of a tempestuous relationship between McCartney and the former model.

Mills has since lashed out at news media coverage of the divorce, which she said has been unfair to her and driven her to the brink of suicide.

In a television interview last year, Mills said she had endured "18 months of abuse, worse than a murderer or pedophile."

Monday's divorce settlement fell short of the previous record for a litigated divorce settlement in Britain. An award of £48 million ($96 million) was handed down last year, according to British divorce lawyer Julian Lipson.

quote:

(CNN) -- The following is the text of statement released by the Family Court on the financial settlement for Heather Mills in her divorce from Paul McCartney:

This is a summary of the judgment handed down today (17 March 2008). It is not a summary of every issue in the judgment. This summary forms no part of the judgment. The court ruled that the judgment should be published but upon Ms. Mills' application granted a stay of such publication pending her appeal to the Court of Appeal.

1. The fundamental issue was what financial provision should be made for Ms. Mills. She sought an award of almost 125 million pounds ($250 million). Sir Paul proposed that the wife should exit the marriage with assets of 15.8 million pounds ($31.6 million) inclusive of any lump sum award.

2. The judge decided that the husband should pay the wife a lump sum of 16.5 million pounds ($33 million) which together with her assets of 7.8 million pounds ($15.6 million) (which include her current properties) means that she exits her marriage with total assets of 24.3 million pounds ($48.6 million) inclusive of a deemed figure of 500,000 pounds ($1 million) referable to her overspending in the period of separation.

3. The judge found that the total value of all the husband's assets, including his business assets, was about 400 million pounds ($800 million). There was no evidence at all before him that he was worth 800 million pounds ($1.6 billion).

4. The judge found that although the parties met in 1999 and formed a relationship, the parties did not cohabit from March 2000 but did so from the date of the marriage (11 June 2002). The parties separated in April 2006. The length of the marriage was just under four years.

5. The judge refused to permit either party to raise as an issue the alleged conduct of the other on the broad ground that it was irrelevant.

6. The judge, in undertaking the exercise prescribed by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, decided that the needs of the wife were a factor of magnetic importance.

7. The lump sum of 16.5 million pounds ($33 million) is made up of a sum of 14 million pounds ($28 million) as the capitalized figure for the wife's income needs, which the judge assessed at 600,000 pounds ($1.2 million) per annum, and a sum of 2.5 million pounds ($5 million) for the wife to buy a property in London.

8. Financial provision for Beatrice consists of a periodical payments order of 35,000 pounds ($70,000) per annum, the husband agreeing to pay for her nanny and her school fees.

9. The court made an order in the following terms:

Save for the release of the judgment and Order dated 17 March 2008 the Wife and the Husband and any persons acting on their behalves are strictly prohibited from publishing, disclosing, or in any way revealing without the consent of the other, the evidence, correspondence, transcripts, judgments or Orders in the proceedings concerning (a) the child of the family, (b) the main suit, (c) the cross-applications for ancillary relief, and (d) any marital confidences. If consent is not forthcoming then the party seeking publication shall be entitled to seek the permission of a Family Division Judge to do so.

10. The judge expressed his confidence that the media would respect the privacy and confidentiality of the Children Act and ancillary relief proceedings, including evidence and submissions (oral and in writing) given within both sets of proceedings.