Page 165 - Combined file Solheim

22. The claimant’s email (dated 7 October 2017) which admits to deceiving his then
th
solicitors and tacitly to fraud is detailed in the McKenzie friend Application narrative
at paragraph 5.4 and it will be a critical cross-examination exhibit at trial.

23. If the Claimant’s funds have been fraudulently obtained, any offset which the FD
might have been inclined to accept would be liable to seizure under proceeds of
crime laws or recovery by the insurance companies concerned. The FD was worried Page | 4
that she could face a “double whammy”.
24. The FD repeatedly tried to arrange a round table meeting to confidentially
investigate the provenance of the Claimant’s funds. These efforts were unsuccessful.

25. The FD offered (in exchange for total openness over the Claimant’s funding) to
waive privilege over all her divorce papers. This was again refused and the hearing
of 28 January 2020 is the result,
th
26. A detailed narrative is given (with exhibits) in the Mc Kenzie friend Application
which is now included in the Court Bundle.

27. The Claimant’s pressure and harassment has been relentless, and the FD’s family is
desperately worried about her and her children. In the meantime, the Claimant lives
a hedonistic life, awash with cash, with multiple expensive sports cars, expensive
holidays and a luxury ocean going cruiser based in Portugal. He is due to marry in
April 2020.

28. Despite telling insurers that he would never be able find new employment at more
than £30,000 per annum , the Claimant qualified as a ground training instructor
12
where his fee is £450 a day. He appointed the FD as a director and shareholder in
the company formed to handle this income but grabbed the shares back and
recorded the FD’s resignation as a director without any discussion – soon after
flouncing off.

B. MAIN ISSUES

29. The main issues are:
a) Does the Court accept – as did the Central Family Court – that the £500,000
satisfies all the legal and natural criteria to qualify as a gift and the FD’s asset?

b) Is the Claimant – as a consequence of his need to hide his dishonesty from his
solicitors and insurers [and his false assurances on which the FD accepted a
derisory settlement] - liable for the loss of the FD’s lifetime maintenance of an
estimated £765,000 and estopped against defence?.
c) The Claimant has tried to reclassify the gifts he made to cover shortfalls in living
expenses and the Crusin’ aborted windfall as contributions to property; the
evidence shows they were gifts or loans made to the FD’s ex-husband. Does the
Court believe (to use the Claimant’s exact words) “they remain as gifts”?
d) The Claimant reports – in fortuitous TOLATA compliant verbiage – that he and
the FD had a “common intention” to grant him an interest in Nutley Place. The
evidence is counter-factual and the Court’s ruling is critical.

Bates Number Bates No165
12 This residual income affected the insurance pay-outs.