Page 31 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 6:FINAL HEARING
and school fees. LPJS confirmed the schedule with the Claimant and he did not object to
it or refer to the £500,000

TH
5.32 SCHEDULE OF ASSETS & EARNINGS: 20 MAY 2018
132. On 20 May 2018, the Claimant sent an email to MJC from LPJS’s account
th
115
supposedly attaching a schedule of “Earnings and Assets”. But there was no attachment.
MJC spoke on the telephone with the Claimant and told him that:

“Without your input APMS will be let off the hook. You do realise this don’t you?”.

The Claimant responded; “Fuck Anthony!: I will look after Lou and the kids” but agreed that
he would write a statement.

133. On the morning of 21 May 2018, LPJS picked up the schedule (Attachment 4) from
st
the office in Nutley Place and while on the way to Court for the Final Hearing handed it
to MJC. It is a grossly inadequate and misleading document. Some important points will
be reserved for cross examination. However;

a. It is not signed, sworn or dated and does not include details of assets or
liabilities, income and expenses, as requested. For Court purposes it is useless.

b. The schedule suggests that the NPV of the Claimant’s lost earnings was
£2,520,000 for which he received compensation of only £915,000 resulting in
117
116
a loss earning amounting to £1,605,000 at age 65. It is wrong and completely
ignores any residual earnings

c. The more accurate position indicates that the Claimant “profited” by around
£1.5 million from the accident:

Element Claimant’s Actual Position
statement
Loss of earnings Age 65/60 £2,520,000 £1,056,000
Loss of Licence £915,000 £394,936.92
Personal accident claims £325,194.94 £1,464,458.82
Residual income 0 £735,072
Net future losses (NPV) -£1,279,805.16 +£1,538,467.74

d. He states “I loaned Louise £500,000 to be drawn down for living expenses and secured
against her equity in Nutley Place. This was blocked by Anthony Siggers” The
Claimant knew that this was untrue because he had, in effect, blocked the
funds from the outset and APMS’s intervention was of no consequence.

e. It is abundantly clear on the face of the document that the “loan” was not an
118
“investment in property” – as now suggested - but was for living expenses.

115 Probably so that the Claimant could deny knowledge of it
116 To age 65 rather than age 60
117 Not specified but net of tax
118 Which the Claimant knew was very important for the Court
Bates Number Bates No031 25 | Pa ge