Page 26 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 5:CHRONOLOGY OF INSURANCE CLAIMS
maintenance. The Claimant responded: “all I am going to say it is that it is what it is, and
the Court can decide”.

MJC continued; “if it was a loan, there would be no reason for not telling me: would
there?” and ;
95
“I am not asking you to say anything which is untrue, but you do understand that it is
in everyone’s interest to say it was a loan if it was. It would mean APMS cannot get
his hands on it or argue it to reduce his maintenance?”

The Claimant responded that he had said all he was going to say: “end of!. It is not my
fucking problem”.

It should be noted that at no time before consulting lawyers in July or August 2018, did
the Claimant suggest that the £500,000 was “a contribution towards property”. The
only question had been whether it had been a loan or a gift; which he doggedly refused
to resolve; thereby causing LPJS to lose her lifetime maintenance.

5.23 CAT AND MOUSE GAMES
108. The usual cat and mouse game between the Claimant and Diamond Insurance headed
towards a Joint Settlement Meeting (JSM). The Claimant was both excited and worried
about the outcome. On one hand, he was hoping for a large payment that would bring
the matter to a close and on the other he knew that he was not trusted and may have to
make disclosures on Oath and be cross-examined especially on non-disclosure of the AIG
96
policy.

109. Mr James Arney, Diamond’s Counsel, prepared a note in advance of the meeting,
stating that parts of the Claimant’s narrative were:

“grossly unsustainable and raise concerns that the picture he paints in other regards
must be considered with caution”.

110. Mr Arney listed the further disclosures that he would require if settlement was not
reached, including “disclosure of all documentation relating to the Claimant’s insurance
policy .
97
111. At around this time, the Final Hearing of LPJS’s divorce and the insurance settlement
converged. MJC – who was trying to prepare LPJS’s statement and Court bundles - was
infuriated with both her and the Claimant, saying that he could not understand what the
problem was and why they were vacillating and that they “should shit or get off the pot”.
LPJS explained that it was not her fault and that the problem was caused entirely by the
Claimant’s refusal to clarify whether the £500,000 was a gift or a loan.

112. LPJS hoped that the £500,000 had been a gift, but her priority, at that time, was to
98
prevent APMS stealing it. Her loyalties were unquestionably with the Claimant and she

95 Words to the effect
96 His Counsel did not want him to join the meeting because “he looked far to healthy!
97 Counsel was not aware of the AIG payment but would have discovered it though renewed rounds of disclosure.
98 And inwardly believed
Bates Number Bates No026 20 | Pa ge