Page 204 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 203

CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT'S POSITION STATEMENT

7 The FD was unwilling to capitulate to the Claimant's egregious demands for four
main reasons. They:

• Were false ridiculous and extorsive:
.
• Are based on his funding which is of questionable provenance; may be
"tainted .. in money laundering terms. and subject to reclaim by insurers:
• Would result in loss of the family home and

• In the FD's youngest son being removed from his present school.

8 The FD has been willing - at all stages - to reach a fair settlement. She has not filed
4
a counterclaim but contends that it would be at least £163,628 for the Claimant's
derisive underpayment of living expenses and £765,000 for loss of her lifetime
maintenance from her ex-husband. This was caused predominantly by the
5
Claimant's duplicity.
9 If natural justice were to prevail the Claimant would finally confirm that the
£500,000 was a gift and that he owes the FD between £231 300 and £311,464
.
(see McKApp para 234) and However she wants this hostile litigation brought to
.
an end and would be willing to consider a clean break.
10 The following paragraphs summarise important aspects of the case.

3. TOLATA TYPE INTEREST IN NUTLEY PLACE

11 The Claimant had never mentioned TOLA TA until he had flounced off and
6
consulted lawyers. Then, all of a sudden, he discovered a new lexicon in which
"gifts .. became "loans" and "loans" became "contributions towards property .. ,
"lodger" became a "joint owner ...

12 The Claimant has attempted to rewrite history using TO LAT A conforming terms­
that were never used, substituted for those that were, or ignored when facts do not
support his false claim.

13 He states :
7
• "she treated him as though he was a joint owner of the property";

• "she customarily referred to the property as 'our home'"

• "there was an agreement and common intention that the claimant had a
beneficial interest in the property"

• "in reliance on the agreement between the claimant and the first defendant the Q)
claimant made significant financial contributions to the property" b.O
<"<l
P-
4 Her then lawyers told her thefllingfee would be £10,000, which she could not afford
5 The FD recog11ises that the Family Court has become less disposed towards lifetime maillte11a11ce a11d that there was 110
guaralltee that the prevaili11g Order would have bee11 co11jir111ed. However, had the Court k11ow11 the Claima11t would
decamp immediately the FD's 111ai11te11a11ce was cut its decisio11 would have bee11 dijfere11t
6 In early July 2018
7 Claim date I 2'h Febrna,y 20/9