Page 274 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 273

Order of DDJ Robinson

Whilst I was not present at the hearing on 28 January, we understand from our client that the
Deputy Judge made plain his disfavour of the procedure for McKenzie Friends, had not fully read
into the case so as to understand our client's position and rejected every application our client
made. She felt that he was dismissive and irritable and our client has requested a transcript of the
hearing. For example, when our client made an application for disclosure of your client's will (which
is a very important document), the Judge responded; "Not all people make wills,,. Yet it was clear
from our client's Position Statement (which had been omitted from the bundle and had to be handed
in to court) and other evidence that your client had made a will at a time critical to this case and
was not being honest about it. Your counsel made no effort to correct the Deputy District Judge.

The pleaded case

The disclosures we have requested are wholly consistent with our client's pleaded case that the
£500,000 transferred to her on 21 December 2016, was in all legal and natural senses a "gi�"
motivated by his own immediate self-interest. In summary:

• Your client unconditionally transferred (i.e. "gifted" - without a single word of
st
documentation) all interest in the £500,000 to our client on 21 December 2016 to conceal
compensation of between £525,000 and £536,000 paid by AIG from his solicitors (Kingsley
Napley) and to mislead Diamond Insurance;

• Thereafter, he abandoned the "gift" and refused to make any claim to it or give evidence at
Final Hearing in the Family Court between our client and the Second Defendant or even to
say whether it was a loan or a gift. This resulted in her losing a considerable sum in lifetime
maintenance;

• His source of funding, amounting in total to over £ 1.9m (including reimbursement of costs)
appears to be fundamentally dishonest and may be subject to seizure as the proceeds of
crime. We have made it clear that any settlement must be founded on proof that your client's
funds were legitimately obtained and certainty that they will not be overtaken by third party
litigation (AIG, Diamond Insurance, Hiscox etc) or proceeds of crime seizure by the NCA
or SFO;

• The longer this litigation progresses, the more likely it is to attract interest of the insurers

and the Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (which our client understands may already
be looking into the AIG claim). This could result in your client losing all of his compensation
and costs;