18 March 2008,
Here are some of the key points taken verbatim from the report:
The pair announced the end of their marriage in May 2006
They have one child, Beatrice born on 28 October 2003.
At my prompting the parties agreed to stay their divorce proceedings... on or after 1 May 2008, by which time would have been separated for two years... So, at a hearing arranged for 12 May I hope to be able to pronounce a decree nisi of divorce.
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-belief. The objective facts simply do not support her case.
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. I do not doubt her commitment to charitable causes.
I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband's professional flame and gave him back his confidence.
I accept that since April 2006 the wife has had a bad press. To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character.
She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews in October and November 2007.
The nub of the wife's case as to compensation is contained in paragraphs 49 and 50 of her affidavit of 30 January 2008:
"Even after we were married I continued to use my own money to live.
"Paul repeatedly told me that he would make sure that I was financially secure, should my money run out. My income stream and my savings did start to run out drastically.
"Countless lucrative business opportunities were made to me once Paul and I married.
"Sadly, Paul advised against 99% of all of them. He stated that they were only interested in me because of his name and that I should just stick to charity work and he would take car [sic] of me.
"If I had been free to pursue my TV career, especially in the US, then I believe, and have been told by other professionals, I would have made millions. Paul would not allow me to work in the US.
"He would tell me 'we won't be living there and you would be a bad mother if you worked'.
"I believe now that Paul's reason for refusing to support me in doing something career wise was his fear of losing my undivided attention. He also needed to be the centre of attention at all times."
She places great weight on the contributions she says she has made to counselling the husband's children by his former marriage and to the husband's professional career.
She "counselled" him through his grieving over Linda. She gave him confidence after Linda's death to restart touring.
She says she helped him write songs. She suggested that he should have an acrylic finger nail because he had worn down his finger nail of his left hand to the point that it bled.
She helped, it is said, with the set design and lighting on his tours. She went on every tour; indeed, she says, he insisted on her coming.
The wife summed up her contribution at paragraph 145 in this way: "I was his full time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist."
The husband's evidence was, in my judgement, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.
He is an icon to millions of people.
The husband's evidence to me was that he had never said that the wife was/would be a bad mother. He told me that she has always been a good mother.
There are... examples, in my judgement, which, contrary to the wife's case, show that the husband was supportive of, or furthered, the wife's career.
After the marriage the nature of their relationship changed. At paragraph 17 of his [Sir Paul's] January 2007 affidavit he said:
"After our marriage, the nature of our relationship to my mind, changed significantly. I was and remain fairly old-fashioned about marriage.
"We decided upon a proper wedding for that reason - I did not want any suggestion that we were in any way furtive or ashamed about our marriage. I believed it was for life and that it put everything on a very different footing.
"I drew up a Will to include Heather which I executed on 5 June 2002.
"We stopped using contraception the night we were married. There was never any question of us doing so before the wedding.
"Heather had one miscarriage before Beatrice was conceived in the first year of our marriage. Neither of us contemplated children without marriage."
"Thus it is my case that the wealth built up during our marriage is approximately £39.6 million. This was the result of market growth in the value of the pre-marital assets, and from tours, where I was mainly performing works created prior to my marriage."
It must be remembered that, as the husband said in evidence, there was a considerable volatility in their relationship.
There were good times, there were bad times, and the relationship always left in the husband's mind a question whether he and the wife were going to be ultimately right for each other.
From April 2003 the wife received an annual allowance of £360,000 payable quarterly. He made cash gifts to her of £250,000 in December 2002 and again in December 2003. The husband made a will to include the wife.
The wife says that the husband "turned down many opportunities to help my charities" and that his "refusal to commit" made any of his appearances on behalf of a charity much less effective.
I have to say that the facts as I find them to be do not support the wife's case.
He denied that she had encouraged him to return to touring. He firmly said that she contributed nothing on the tours. She did not design sets or assist with the lighting.
He had a team of specialists for all technical matters. He was shown a DVD where the wife appeared in the credits under "artistic coordination". He said that that was a favour to the wife, a romantic gesture.
The husband, I find, was generous towards the wife.
He denied he had lost his confidence [after the death of his first wife]. Her [the wife's] case that in some way she single-handedly saved him was exaggerated.
The wife, as the husband said, enjoys being the centre of attention.
I am prepared to accept that her presence was emotionally supportive to him but to suggest that in some way she was his "business partner" is, I am sorry to have to say, make-belief.
In 1998 Linda died of cancer. I have no doubt that he was deeply upset by her death.
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.
It is not without significance that until the husband married the wife 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.
He agreed that the wife together with his family and friends had helped him through his grieving for Linda.
He said that for about a year after Linda's death he was in a sad state and that the wife exhibited the normal reactions of any kindly person.
I regret to say that I strongly suspect that the motives of both wife and husband in trying to introduce the conduct of each other into these financial relief proceedings has got far more to do with the impending libel trials than the instant proceedings.
On one side is the wife's case of the husband running a media campaign to smear her; on the other is the husband's case that it is the wife who is running a media campaign to smear him.
I am... confident that the media will respect the privacy and confidentiality of both sets of proceedings. Beyond that nothing more needs to be said.