Page 166 - Combined file Solheim

Possibly the most important single item is the FD’s will, signed on 16th
November 2016 [and discussed with the Claimant at that time13]. The will
makes it clear that not only did the Claimant have no current interest in Nutley
Place, but that he never would. It states that on the FD’s death 100% of the
interest in Nutley Place will pass to her four children.

The FD went so far as to apologise to the Claimant for being “a bit hard” saying Page | 5
that Nutley Place was the only asset she had and passing it to her children “was
the way it had to be.” He did not object and in fact asked for the name of the
firm that drafted the will so that he could retain them.

In his Reply of 30 July 2019, the Claimant denies all knowledge of the FD’s
th
will and any conversation relating to it. Yet his bank statements show that on
5 June 2017 he paid £210 to Core Law to write his will.
th
30. I urge the Court to issue a Production Order for the Claimant’s will and all
documentation relating to it and to require him to submit a Form E at least 3 weeks
prior to trial.

31. I contend that the Claimant has launched these proceedings, in the certain
knowledge that his central claims are false, bordering on obscene.
32. They mirror his deception against Diamond Insurance in which he swore a least four
iterations of a perjured SCHEDULE (of claim). Under the circumstances I urge the
Court to consider the question of interim costs and formal censure.

Dated this 22 January 2020
nd

Louise Siggers
Litigant in person

Bates Number Bates No166
13 He asked for the name of the firm that prepared the will, so that “he could to his”. The firm was Core Law