We have all read that Heather Mills is to receive £24 million out of her own and Paul McCartney's total assets of £408 million. In addition to the £24 million, Paul will be paying for his daughter's nanny and school fees as well as £35,000 per year child maintenance and a temporary security detail.

In 'big money' cases it is easy to presume that the principles that can be drawn from the judgment do not apply to cases where the assets are more limited, and that therefore there's no effect on couples without £400 million. However, that is not the situation, and the outcome in this case is a good example of how courts deal with divorces generally.

The law says that the courts have to consider 'all the circumstances of the case' but must give first consideration to the welfare of any minor children. The court will therefore look at each party's income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources as well as his or her financial needs; the parties' standard of living, ages and the duration of the marriage; the contributions of each party (not necessarily financial) and the parties' conduct where it would be inequitable (very unfair) to disregard it. The court can look at other factors but has to look at these, and in Paul and Heather's case, the judge, Mr Justice Bennett, did exactly that in his 58-page judgment.

The first issue was that the marriage only lasted four years, from 2002 to 2006 when they separated. Although the court will count prior cohabitation when it moves seamlessly into marriage (which affects those people who live together for years before they marry), Paul and Heather did not live together until they got married.

In the case of a long marriage (approximately 10 years plus), the starting point is a 50/50 split of the matrimonial assets and it is not really important who contributed what financially. However, in the case of a short marriage such as Paul's and Heather's, the court gives much more weight to what each party has contributed in determining how the assets should be split. This principle is relevant to all divorce cases, including those of us who do not have £400 million to argue over.

Clearly, this is a case in which the overwhelming majority of the assets (£400 million) came from Paul's music and business activities prior to meeting Heather.However, when the law says 'contribution', it does not mean only money. Courts must take into account contribution 'to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family'. If the wife (for it is usually she) has spent years raising the children while the husband has gone out to work, both of them have made equally valuable contributions and have also been dependent on the other's contribution.The court can in fact compensate the wife for her loss of career prospects but as the judge decided Paul had helped Heather's career, this wasn't relevant here.

Therefore Heather had made a contribution to the marriage, both in financial terms (£7.8 million, although much of that was gifted by Paul anyway) and as mother to Beatrice. However, whilst this contribution may have been equal during the marriage, Paul put in an enormous amount of assets which he had accrued prior to the marriage and in a short marriage this has to be taken into account or the outcome would be deeply unfair.

In cases of this type – and it is equally relevant to cases where the assets are £400,000 rather than £400 million – the court looks at the needs of the party who has made the lesser contribution. The judge found Heather's needs to be of 'magnetic importance' to his decision.

The £24 million awarded to Heather – which includes the nearly £8 million she had already – is the figure that the judge decided Heather needed for housing and to live on whilst she increased her earnings and became self sufficient. The judge also gave Heather £50,000 for her to contribute to charity, which is certainly unprecedented but designed to reflect what he called Heather's 'very impressive' devotion to charities.

For most of us, £24 million is far more than we need but the court is entitled to take into account the standard of living of the parties during the marriage. The judge did however make it clear that 'after a short marriage to a very wealthy man it is unfair to expect that she should continue to live at the same "rate" as during the marriage'. The judge also strongly criticised her for 'over egging' her claims, calling them exorbitant. It is certainly possible that if she had been realistic about what she needed for a comfortable rather than deluxe lifestyle, she would have had a better chance of getting more because the court may have seen logic in her arguments.

Of course, sometimes what one person actually needs is the majority of the assets and this is typically a case where there are limited assets and young children who need to be housed. In such a case, the person whose earning capacity (and thus mortgage capacity) is limited by looking after the children can often receive the majority of the assets, at least for as long as the children are minors.

So, what lessons can we draw from Paul's and Heather's experience?

Although I am not privy to what advice Heather received before she fired her legal team, it strikes me as an enormous pity that this was not settled before it reached court. As a solicitor dealing with this type of work all the time, I can tell you that there is nothing new in this judgment. I recently argued – successfully – on one of my own cases, that a wife should not receive more than she needed in order to buy a modest house for herself. In that case, the assets had all been contributed by the husband as a result of an exceptional event and the wife had made no matching contribution of any kind. This case is no different, it's just the assets are larger.

It's always difficult if one party does not accept the reality of the law. Whilst in this case, it was necessary for a judge to make a decision for the parties, there are other alternatives open to divorcing couples, such as collaborative law and mediation both of which my firm offers and both of which enable greater confidentiality and dignity in reaching a financial settlement.

At the end of the day, whilst Paul was the clear winner financially (Heather got £100 million less than she asked for), both had to endure a humiliating, stressful and expensive court battle and this will have a lasting effect on their lifetime relationship as Beatrice's parents.

For further information please contact Polly Morgan on 01603 610911 or email her on pmorgan@leathesprior.co.uk