Page 134 - Combined file Solheim

CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT

 Knew that the FD would be willing to give back the £500,000 and sign a loan
agreement : he became angry and refused to discuss it;
22
 Repeatedly refused to attend the Final Hearing as a witness. His final excuse
was because he had to “stay home to look after the dog”. Even this was untrue
because he drove to Hampshire and hid himself away on an unscheduled
training session until the hearing was over.

45 He was eventually persuaded (on 19 May 2018) to prepare a sworn schedule of
th
his assets, liabilities, income and expenses : but again, he prevaricated (see
23
McKApp paragraph 113 et seq).

46 On 19 May 2018, he provided a single sheet draft that was of absolutely no use.
th
The FD’s father spoke to the Claimant who invited him to amend it: which he did.
A “final version” was emailed to the Claimant at 20.11 on 19 May 2018 with a
th
request that he should call the FD’s father if he had any problems with it. He did
not call.

47 On the morning of 21 May 2018, [the Final Hearing] a schedule of “Earnings and
st
Assets” finally appeared (Exhibit E). It was unsworn, undated and unsigned and
misleading . Counsel decided it should not be presented to the Court.
24
48 IN ANY CASE, THE FINAL HEARING CONCLUDED THAT THE £500,000 WAS A
GIFT AND REDUCED FD’S LIFELONG MAINTENANCE ACCORDINGLY.

49 Around 4 weeks after the Final Hearing, the Claimant made up his mind that he
would vamoose, and nothing would stop him claiming that the £500,000 was a
loan: or better still “a contribution towards property”. What a difference a day
makes!

50 If the Claimant had simply told the Final Hearing (as he is saying now) that the
£500,000 was a loan or a contribution towards property there is very strong
possibility that the FDs lifetime maintenance from her ex-husband would have
remained in place. If he had not delayed his desertion until waiting to see whether
the FD’s maintenance would continue – thus waiting to bet on the race until after it
had run – FD would be £765,000 better off.

51 The reason he refused to participate in the Final Hearing was – most likely - to hide
his dishonesty. The Court will be asked to consider whether it makes him liable for
the FD’s losses and whether he is estopped from denying the promises of
commitment on which the FD relied.

7. LOANS OF £81,000

52 Evidence shows that most of the Claimant’s loans were made to APMS and not to
the FD. For example, on 3 October 2017, the Claimant emailed APMS to say: Page8
rd

22 Even though she believed, at all times, the £500,000 had been a gift. Her primary objective was to prevent APMS removing
it has he had done years earlier when he drained the feeder account.
23 Which would require him to state whether the £500,000 was a loan or a gift
Bates Number Bates No134 24
24
In fairness to the Claimant, his original draft schedule was edited by the FD’s father (following discussion between them)
and some of the wording and formatting may be his