Page 164 - Combined file Solheim

Porsches – to Hampshire, where he remained until he knew the hearing was over.

15. On 20 May 2018, Judge Todd [at the Final hearing in the Central Family Court]
th
Ordered that the FDs lifetime maintenance from her ex-husband should be slashed
because of the Claimant’s financial support and the permanence of their relationship.
Although not specifically stated, Judge Todd concluded that the £500,000 was a gift Page | 3
and an asset of the FD and made his Order accordingly.

16. Forty-five days later, despite all his previous promises of enduring love and limitless
support, the Claimant flounced off, demanded repayment of the £500,000, claiming
it was a loan “secured against Nutley Place”. This was grossly untrue, and no security
was asked for or given.
17. The FD’s proposals to negotiate were rebuffed and these extremely aggressive
proceedings launched with initial service threatened for Christmas Eve 2017. Court
Orders required the FD to make premature and unnecessary disclosures of her
defence and to comply with directions attributed to Deputy District Judge Harvey
when the matters concerned had never been raised before him. Under normal
circumstances the Order would be considered a forgery and it is unquestionably
unfair and self-serving to the Claimant;

 The initial Claim Form (under Part 7 and dated 4 March 2019) was
th
8
accompanied by a Part 8 claim served on 15 March 2019. This supposedly
th
attached the Claimant’s statement (but did not) and required that the FD file her
defence by 1 April 2019;
st
 An entirely false Order, supposedly dated 29 August 2018, required the FD to
th
disclose all of the papers (many of them privileged) in her divorce hearing by
4pm on 11 September 2019 and to return the Claimant’s flying records, the
th
children’s birth certificates and personal files by 4pm on 28 August 2019 . It is
9
th
indeed a strange court order that requires disclosure a day before its issue!
18. The Claimant’s solicitors initially attempted to weaken the FD’s defence by refusing
to enclose a highly relevant Application relating to approval of a McKenzie friend in
the Court Bundle on the specious “grounds” that a specific Court direction was
required .
10
19. The Claimant’s solicitors made a Part 36 offer which provided no concession to the
FD and on legal advice was declined. He wanted 50% of her home.
11
20. Although the FD tried to avoid extended litigation and would have considered a fair
offer of settlement she was advised- by her ex solicitors - not to do so. This was
because the provenance of the Claimant’s funds [of which the £500,000 was part]
was in doubt and was possibly fraudulent.
21. Evidence emerged to indicate that the Claimant had transferred the £500,000 to the
FD to hide it from his then solicitors and insurers so that he could maximise other
compensation (The “Big One”).

8 Form N1
9 That is one day later supposedly because they were required for a Civil Aviation inspection. The documents could
not be found in Nutley Place and as far as is known the CAA has remained silent. In fact, it is likely that the Claimant
removed them when he entered Nutley Place illegally (and the police were called) in late July 2018
Bates Number Bates No164
Contrary to para 4.2 of Practice Direction 27A which specifically allows all Applications
10
11 Except on costs