This week were all talking about Maccas lawyer Shacka and the water attacker, Mucca

Heather Mills has had her fair share of column inches, but the outcome of her divorce from Paul McCartney has created a feeding frenzy in the press.

Family lawyers agree the case has no great implications for the law, but it makes for fascinating reading all the same.

On Monday Mucca attempted to block the publication of the judgment.

She stood before the Royal Courts of Justice and attempted to win the support of the nation by galvanising them against the system: These people are in a club, they dont want to see a litigant in person doing well.

Unfortunately for Mills, the nation did not heed her call. Neither did the press pack.

Tuesday mornings front pages were jam packed with pictures of Maccas lawyer, Beach Payne Hicks partner Fiona Shackleton – now dubbed ‘Shacka’- emerging from the courts looking rather wet. Apparently, Mills threw water over Shacka in court making her a front page pin up.

Mills said she would block publication of the judgment. Divorce lawyers said she had little grounds upon which to appeal – that details of hers and her daughters private life were already in the public domain. It seemed she was putting off the inevitable.

And on Tuesday morning, the court revealed its decision making process.

Mr Justice Bennett, the presiding judge, could not conceal the fact that he had taken McCartneys case to be based on fact, while Mills lived in some sort of fantasy world.

One clear example would be that Mills won less than a fifth of the 125m she had claimed of her husbands fortune – yet she claimed it as a victory for her case. Had she stayed in her relationship with Mishcon de Reya, things may have been very different.

The judgment, in all its glory, is worth a read. But for those too bogged down with essays and assignments here is a selection of juicy morsels from the ruling:

Overall she was a less than impressive witness. Her evidence was inconsistent, inaccurate and less than candid. She failed to provide any evidence of her wealth as she claimed it to be in 1999. She also failed to support claims that she had donated between 80 and 90 per cent of her wealth to charity.

Claims that McCartney prevented her from working were shot down, as were her arguments that she had helped save his career following the death of his previous wife, Linda.

And as for the poor timing of her morning chat with GMTV which appeared to have cost Mills her divorce lawyers and PR representatives, Bennett J said: She unwisely gave interviews in October and November 2007 which may have produced intrusion into her life by the media. But that was very largely self-inflicted.

The big winner in this is Shackleton, who has reportedly earned 3m for her services. For would-be divorce lawyers among you, it is the choice few who make it to Shackas dizzying heights. Nerves of steel and mouth kept firmly shut are essential prerequisites.