Page 179 - Combined file Solheim

Disclosure by Sigve Solheim
Strictly Confidential in contemplation of legal proceedings

1. A BRIEF BACKGROUND
The disclosures (and production orders) that Mr Solheim should be required to make are
critical to Louise’s case and we can anticipate that he will resist. Dawson Hart has said that
funding is not relevant the DDJ Robinson was or the same view. We must be resolute.

The bulk Mr Solheim’s funds – some of which he now claims were passed to Louise as loans
or TOLATA conformable “contributions to property” – originated as compensation from
multiple personal accident and loss of licence insurance policies amounting to £1,859,395.74.

The provenance of these funds as well as:

a. Mr Solheim’s motivation for depositing £500,000 into Louise’s mortgage account on
21 December 2016, in a panic, without any meaningful discussion or a line of
st
documentation, through a convoluted, manipulative process;
b. His concealment of personal accident damages of £525,397.60 paid by AIG on 28 th
October 2016. Possibly equally important is why easyJet, who was in repeated and
direct contact with Kingsley Napley over all disclosure requests, did not
independently report the AIG policy or show the premiums on his payslips;

c. His motivation for, and efforts to, disassociate himself from all ownership interest in
the £500,000 paid to Louise;

d. His refusal to give evidence in the Final Hearing of Louise’s divorce on 21 May 2018
st
and to clarify on oath whether the £500,000 was a loan or a gift; having already
told Louise it was “our” money;

e. His determination to mislead Kingsley Napley, Diamond Insurance, the Courts and
others by deception and perjury;

are fundamental to this case for three main reasons:

1. They are central to his credibility and his current but untruthful assertions that the
£500,000 was an “agreed in writing”, under a “joint understanding”, TOLATA
“contribution which was “secured on Nutley Place”;

2. It supports Louise’s contention that the £500,000 was in every legal and other sense a
“gift” involving an unconditional transfer of title to her;

3. It is critical that the Court confirms the provenance of the Claimant’s funds and
ensures that any redistribution of assets is not liable to proceeds of crime or
“fundamental dishonesty” reversal;

Bates Number Bates No179