Page 95 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 094

,...
comer@btinternet.com

From: George Mallet < GMallet@hendersonchambers.co.uk>
Sent: 14 August 2019 18:52
To: Paul Tracey; Thomas Burton-Wills
Subject: Hearing Summary: Solheim v Siggers & Siggers (Claim No.: F00BN141)
· 'Attachments: 13.8.19 - Solheim v Siggers - Draft Dir Order - Amended.doc

Dear Paul & Tom,

Thank you for instructing me in this matter.

A summary of the hearing is set out below:

Details·

Matter: Solheim v Siggers & Siggers

Claim No.: F00BN141

Attended: Lewes County Court

Before: Deputy District Judge Harvey

Time: 14 August 2019 at 12noon

Description: Directions Hearing

Order:

Please see attached.

Comment

Prior to the hearing, I took instructions from the client. She confirmed that my instructions remained to seek a stay
for settlement. Outside Court, Mr Solheim's counsel (Ms M Benson) stated that he wanted directions to trial (on the
basis that Ms Siggers had not engaged with previous attempts to mediate). In the hearing, I submitted that there
could not be directions to trial as we had not produced directions questionnaires and that costs budgeting was
required but precedent H's had not been served. The Court agreed that the next step would be to allow time for
mediation and a further CMC. The Court raised the possibility of a Court-led mediation (called an 'FOR-type
hearing'). The possibility had been discussed in previous meetings but not for some time so II sought a short
adjournment to seek instructions. Ms Siggers stated that she would prefer to have a mediation arranged with an
independent mediator rather than via the Court. I made submissions to the Court but in the end the judge decided
that he would preside over an FOR-type hearing personally. The matter will not be listed until October, at the
earliest, and therefore there is still time to arrange a roundtable meeting or mediation in advance. After the hearing,
Ms Siggers confirmed that she would probably still like Grosvenor to arrange a roundtable meeting (but I suggest
that those instructing confirm that point once again). As such, the outcome is quite useful. A Court-led mediation is
cheaper. We cannot really be sure whether a private or Court-led mediation would be more beneficial in this case. It
is clear that the other side still intends to treat this action as a family matter. Prior to any mediation etc., the parties 1
will need to obtain some evidence as to the value of the property.

Mr Siggers remained keen to obtain further information concerning the origin of the £500,000 to support his
� suspicion that the money was the product of a fraudulently obtained settlement. I reiterated that we could not
allege fraud without reasonably credible evidence which remained lacking. I also stated that if we were to demand
1