Page 180 - Combined file Solheim

Disclosure by Sigve Solheim
Strictly Confidential in contemplation of legal proceedings
Our hypothesis is that Mr Solheim transferred the £500,000 to Louise, unconditionally
1
because he was paranoid that compensation (of £525,000) he had received from AIG - but
had not disclosed to Kingsley Napley (KN) or other insurers - would be discovered and
disqualify him from what he believed would be a windfall of around £2 million from
Diamond Insurance.

In an email, dated 7th October 2017 at 10.46, when Mr Solheim had little other option but
to tell the truth, he emailed Louise’s father:

“I also received an accident insurance pay out from AIG through easyJet’s company accident
insurance which I haven’t mentioned to KN simply because they never asked for it. When KN
asked for all records from HR in EasyJet they have only supplied them with my loss of licence
pay-outs from Hiscox and easyJet; the AIG pay-out has not been mentioned. I might be wrong
here not disclosing the AIG pay out of £534,000, but I wanted KN to maximise my claim in
the way of not finding excuses letting the defendant off lightly.”

He refused to attend Louise’s final divorce hearing and to state whether the £500,000 was a
loan or a gift when all his options were open and had no doubt it was in his interest to claim
the former. His recorded conversation with Louise on 5 March 2018 is typical of his attitude
th
towards the £500,000 . He did not want it mentioned under any circumstances until after the
2
Final Hearing when he knew his subsidised life at Nutley Place was over and had taken the
decision to flounce off.

At that time , Louise was desperate to pay school fees and he offered to lend her £50,000 on
3
the condition that she “would start signing some agreements”. Louise refused to sign anything
and instead Mr Solheim tried to extort money from her parents. When this failed he issued
these proceedings.

Thereafter, nothing could stop him saying that the £500,000 was a loan which he wanted
4
back immediately. Then, after taking legal advice, he now claims the loans were contributions
towards property.

HIS INTENTIONS RELATING TO THE £500,000 ARE REVEALED BY HIS ACTIONS AT THE
TIME AND – MORE IMPORTANTLY – AFTERWARDS.

1 Satisfying all the conditions as a “gift”
2 As were many conversations he had with Michael Comer2, who was trying to prepare statements for Louise’s
divorce hearing.
3 But never once before
4 Supposedly to be drawn down to cover living expenses – but blocked by him from the outset

Bates Number Bates No180