Page 28 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 5:CHRONOLOGY OF INSURANCE CLAIMS
5.25 EFFORTS BY MJC TO COMPLETE STATEMENTS (MARCH 2018)

115. Both LPJS and MJC pointed out – yet again, as persuasively as they could - that the
Claimant’s unwillingness to give evidence was likely to release APMS from his lifetime
maintenance obligations, but it made no difference.

116. Prior to the planned hearing in March 2018:

 MJC told the Claimant: "You understand that if the £500,000 was a loan it is in your
overwhelming interest to say so: don't you? If you don't clarify the position APMS will be
released from his maintenance obligation.” The Claimant agreed but responded that his
"finances were none of the fucking court's business and that he was not on trial";

MJC asked "is the reason you will not clarify the status of the £500,000 because you don't
want to be ordered to increase maintenance for your ex-wife?" The Claimant replied "No":

117. As an alternative to appearing as a witness at the Final Hearing, MJC asked the
Claimant to produce a comprehensive written analysis or a sworn statement of income,
expenditure, assets and liabilities. MJC said he would pay for Counsel to prepare it or
would assist in any way possible. The Claimant refused, point blank, to cooperate.

5.26 DIVORCE FINAL HEARING 6 AND 7 MARCH 2018 [ADJOURNED]
TH
118. MJC told the Claimant that he needed to complete a Case Summary for the Final
Hearing and asked whether he could “safely state” that the £500,000 was a loan and not
LPJS’s asset?. The Claimant responded along the lines of : “You gotta do what you gotta do:
it’s fuck all to do with me”.

119. MJC drafted a case summary – in one version showing the £500,000 as a loan and in
another as a gift - but the hearing was adjourned to May 2018 and the documents were
101
not submitted. LPJS and MJC agreed that the issue was so important and confused that
they must consult Counsel . They pleaded with the Claimant to attend a conference
102
with a direct access barrister. The Claimant refused and was not open to persuasion.

120. Counsel read the evidence and was relaxed over the “loan-gift” conundrum and
103
conflicts in the evidence which in some parts referred to the £500,000 as a loan and in
others as a gift .
104
121. Counsel told LPJS not to worry and carry on as she had throughout the divorce and
simply tell the truth “as best she could as she believed it at the time.” He said the Court
would hear the evidence, determine the status of the £500,000 and rule accordingly.

122. Counsel said it would be helpful - and most likely determinative - if the Claimant
gave evidence or was available at the Final Hearing. He again refused to do this and did
not even ask a single question about the conference and the advice given.

101 In the hope that at the doors of the Court the Claimant would commit to one or the other
102 Which they could ill afford
103 since appointed as a Deputy District Judge in the Family Division
104 LPJS never showed the £500,000 as a loan on Form E
Bates Number Bates No028 22 | Pa ge