"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."

On the issue of claims for compensation for her lost career, Miss Mills gave evidence that Sir Paul had advised her "against 99%'' of what she described as "countless, lucrative business opportunities'' made to her once they had married.

In a written statement before the judge, she said: "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 care of me."

But the judge ruled: "I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife’s career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite, as he says.

"He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as I find them do not in any way support her claim. Compensation therefore does not arise."

The judge said Miss Mills was a good mother, which Sir Paul readily conceded, but her case was that her contribution throughout the marriage was "exceptional''.

"It is a central part of her case that she helped the husband to communicate better with his children, particularly Heather.

"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 his songs.

"She suggested that he should have an acrylic fingernail because he had worn down his fingernail 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."

Miss Mills, he added, summed up her contribution in this way: "I was his full-time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist."

The judge said that Sir Paul agreed that Miss Mills helped him through his grieving, as he was in a "sad state'' for a year after Linda's death, but he argued that her case that she in some way single-handedly saved him was "exaggerated''.

The judge said: "In my judgment the picture painted by the husband of the wife’s part in his emotional and professional life is much closer to reality than the wife’s account.

"The wife, as the husband said, enjoys being the centre of attention. Her presence on his tours came about because she loved the husband, enjoyed being there and because she thoroughly enjoyed the media and public 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."

He added: "I have to say that the wife’s evidence that in some way she was the husband’s 'psychologist’, even allowing for hyperbole, is typical of her make-belief.

"I reject her evidence that she, vis-a-vis the husband, was anyhting more than a kind and loving person who was deeply in love with him, helped him through his grieving and like any new wife tried to integrate into their relationship the children of his former marriage. I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband’s professional flame and gave him back his confidence."

He concluded: "In her final submissions the wife described her contribution as `exceptional’. I reject her case. I am afraid I have to say her case on this issue is devoid of reality. The husband’s evidence is far more persuasive."

Mr Justice Bennett said 65-year-old Sir Paul is "extraordinarily talented'' and has been famous throughout the world for many years.

"During his marriage to Linda, the husband’s wealth was accumulated. By the time he met the wife in 1999 he was fabulously wealthy by even the standards of the very rich.

"He had accumulated valuable paintings and artwork, and properties in England and the USA. He business enterprises were extensive."

His real estate was valued at £33,979,000 and he had £15,159,000 in bank accounts in the US and UK.

His investments were valued at £34,319,000 and other assets - including art, musical instruments, jewellery, furniture, motor vehicles and horses - were valued at £32,269,000.

Sir Paul also had business interests valued at £240,920,000 and a pension pot of £36,288,000.

The judge said his total assets amounted to nearly £400 million and his net income for the next year was estimated at £5,357,000.

Sir Paul told the judge his case was that the wealth built up during the marriage was approximately £39.6 million - the result of market growth in the value of the pre-marital assets and from performing on tour.