Page 131 - Combined file Solheim

CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT

The fact that this denial is demonstrably untrue is indicative of the Claimant’s mens
rea. He could not have forgotten.

27 The FD will apply to the Court for a Production Order on Core Law and will
submit her own will for fingerprinting and other forensic examination.

4. SOURCE OF THE CLAIMANT’S FUNDING

28 The Claimant initially expected to receive between £2,000,000 and £4,000,000
13
in compensation for what was little more than a minor hand injury and bruising to
his ribs and shoulder (See McKApp paragraph 5.1). Once he learned that Diamond
Insurance had admitted liability, his complaints of debilitating tinnitus appeared
(“like an AC/CD concert being in his head all day”) that “put his passengers at risk”.
By its nature, tinnitus is largely self-diagnosed, and the Claimant exaggerated his.

29 He then set out on a course to maximise his compensation (See the “Next Big
One” Exhibit C) and lied to his solicitors, insurers and advisors to achieve this. He
was confident that, at the right time, he could pass all medical examinations and
get his pilot’s licence reinstated.

30 Soon after Diamond Insurance paid out a total of £460,000, the Claimant threw
out his medication and said, “I won’t be needing this anymore”

31 The Claimant swore a number of iterations of the SCHEDULE [for the High Court]
which he knew to be false. His certification was as follows:

“Loss of earnings and benefits
For the avoidance of doubt and in the spirit of openness, the claimant confirms that he has
received insurance payments. Lump sum payments have been made for the loss of his
licence, but under policies for which he himself paid. These are therefore irrelevant to the
claim. He has also received income replacement insurance, but the policy required him to
make a subrogated claim on behalf of the insurer. The claim is therefore for his full loss.

This wording conceals the fact that he had received £525,397.60 compensation
14
under an AIG personal accident policy (not a loss of licence) funded by easyJet (not
by “himself”). The Claimant admits concealing it. The AIG policy is highly relevant
because it duplicates the Diamond Insurance coverage.

32 In an email dated 7 October 2017 at 10.46, when he had little other option but
th
to tell the truth, the Claimant emailed the FD’s father (see McKApp paragraph 99
et seq).

“I also received an accident insurance pay out from AIG through easyJet’s company
accident insurance which I haven’t mentioned to KN simply because they never asked for it.
When KN asked for all records from HR in EasyJet they have only supplied them with my
loss of licence pay-outs from Hiscox and easyJet; the AIG pay-out has not been mentioned.
I might be wrong here not disclosing the AIG pay out of £534,000, but I wanted KN to
maximise my claim in the way of not finding excuses letting the defendant off lightly.”
Page5

Bates Which puts the £500,000 “gift” into context
13Number Bates No131
14 On 26th October 2016