Page 32 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 6:FINAL HEARING
However, not a penny could be withdrawn. It was the ultimate non-loan and in
every sense a “dead parrot”;

f. There was not a hint, let alone a word, of security over Nutley Place:

g. He does not state whether or not the alleged loan was currently outstanding or
its terms;

h. The ambiguous wording provides a plausible excuse for the Claimant to
exclude the £500,000 from any declaration he might be asked to make of his
assets and liabilities ;
119
i. The Claimant declares a personal debt of £70,000. In in fact his account balance
at that time was over £400,000 120 in credit. He was awash with cash, the proud
owner of three Porsche cars, Harley Davidson motorcycle and was about to
spend almost £200,000 on an ocean-going boat 121.

134. The Claimant’s need to falsify this document suggested to LPJS and MJC that he had
not made an honest disclosure of the AIG policy at the Joint Settlement Meeting.

5.33 THE FINAL HEARING: 21 MAY 2018
ST
135. MJC and LPJS spoke to Counsel and together they decided that it would be unsafe to
introduce the schedule in evidence, thereby making it impossible for LPJS to prove with
certainty whether the £500,000 was a gift or a loan [as had been the case with all of her earlier
statements and Form E].

136. Counsel said this ambiguity weakened LPJS’s case and recommended that he should
try to negotiate a settlement with APMS’s legal advisers. Eventually a settlement was
reached which – under pressure from Counsel and MJC – LPJS very reluctantly
accepted . However, she instantly regretted it because it;
122
 Puts her under pressure to sell her home;

 removes her lifetime maintenance and requires her to cover the school fees
APMS had been ordered to pay;

The Order required APMS to pay arrears of £28,604 and he eventually did so but insisted
that LPJS used the funds to pay school fees that he had originally been ordered to pay.
123
137. The settlement was made on the basis that the £500,000 was a gift and thus LPJS’s
asset. Counsel advised that had the Claimant been willing to state unequivocally – as he

119 Which he thought Diamond Insurance might ask for
120 Excluding the £500,000 gift to LPJS
121 And which he later bought and is moored in Portimao in Portugal and is named “FLUENTA”
122 Another factor, which it is fair to disclose, is that MJC was not convinced that Counsel was competent to handle
the case. His papers looked like they had been pulled from a dustbin!
123 For which he was responsible
Bates Number Bates No032 26 | Pa ge