Page 249 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 248

deadline. So, you are in a box, created by month's delay in getting your disclosure list
together.

Also, I believe counsel should have provided you with a written opinion on - at least - the
following points;
• That Mr Solheim's TOLATA claim lacks merit. She should have explained why this is
so and what the practical difference is between a Court finding that the £500,000 was
a loan rather than a contribution towards property? Does it make any difference? If
the Court were to find it was not a TOLA TA claim what is to stop Mr Solheim
resubmitting it on the basis that it was a loan? Where does it get us?

• I believe that the £500,000 was an unconditional transfer by Mr Solheim to you and
is tantamount in all material respects to a gift. The background is set out in my Mc
Kenzie Friend application and in your position statement. For convenience, they are
4
linked here • It does not appear HFC or counsel has understood them.
• Counsel suggests that the AIG claim (from which the £500,000 originated) was
genuine and therefore not tainted. I suggest she considers the effect of "fundamental
dishonesty" on all of Mr Solheim's insurance claims;

• Counsel stated that the recital to Judge Todd's Order makes it clear that the £500,000
was a loan. This is different from the opinion of George Mallet of Henderson
Chambers (see Attachment 2). It is obvious that the Court concluded the £500,000
5
was your asset •
• Counsel implied that she would assess the likely outcome of the Final Hearing if Mr
Solheim had already flounced off: she has not done this;

• Counsel has fixated on the conflicts in your evidence and the fact that you "swore on
Oath that the £500,000 was a loan". The position paper makes it clear why you said
what you did and when you did. She has not addressed the much greater weaknesses
in Mr Solheim's case nor the fact that none of your forms E2 ever listed the supposed
loan. In fact, you made the "Court Aware" of the loan-gift problem.

The file note also contains a number of points that I believe are inaccurate. For example,
how can HFC possibly claim I had waived privilege on the Grosvenor Law documents when I
am not a party to the proceedings?. I agree that I recommended that you should be
absolutely honest with the Court and disclose everything that is relevant.
I do not believe in superficially slick, lawyerly ploys to obscure the truth. In the end, some
poor soul (in this case it would be you and possibly me) has to go in the witness box and try
to finesse position which in my experience (of over 50 years of giving evidence, albeit in
criminal cases) is usually impossible. My golden rule is to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. That is the only basis on which I will consider further funding.

4 I cannot understand how counsel and HFC could have reached some of the concluss they have if they had
read these documents.
5 The Orde simply requires Anthony Sigg to remove the block he had placed on the deposit