Page 46 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 8: DETAILED COMMENTS
11 TOLATA & GIFTS ETC]

LPJS contends that the hearing should NOT just centre on The Trusts of Land &
Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) because the Claimant’s current case that he
and LPJS had agreed that his transfers to her were “contributions to property” is a
barefaced lie.

11.1 TOLATA:CONTEXT
198. LPJS divorced AMPS in 2007, following his admissions of adultery. She was an
innocent party;

 LPJS provided the bulk of the finance to buy Nutley Place years before the Claimant
appeared on the scene;
 Her four children were born there, and it is the only home they have ever known.
Judge Bowman described Nutley Place as “sacrosanct” and LPJS, her children and
parents cherished it;

 LPJS met the Claimant - through friends in September 2009 – and in April 2010 he
moved into Nutley Place: almost penniless and homeless (see paragraph 231);

 The £1,000 to £1,200 the Claimant paid LPJS every month was for his living and
181
incidental expenses and was totally inadequate as he admitted at the time;
 The Claimant’s payments increased, from time to time to help with livery costs and
reimburse LPJS for his car insurance. These were not - under any circumstances -
contributions to property.
 The Claimant told LPJS that he expected a windfall pay-out from shares in his
brother’s company (Cruisin AS) and that when this materialised he would make up the
shortfall in his monthly contributions ;
182
199. Immediately after abandoning LPJS and her four children , the Claimant demanded
183
immediate repayment of around £700,000 on the grounds that it had all been loaned.
He subsequently prepared three schedules differentiating loans from gifts, but with the
Freudian Slip that some “will remain as gifts”. This implies that he gave himself the right
to reclassify some gifts - arbitrarily and retrospectively- as loans. In short, that it was
permissible for him to rewrite history once he had consulted solicitors and needed some
“TOLATA friendly” verbiage.

200. The Claimant made no mention of TOLATA until after he consulted solicitors when
blatantly untrue phrases appeared in the Particular of Claim such as:

 “the First Defendant treated the Claimant as though he were the joint owner of
the property”,

 “there was an agreement and common intention between the Claimant and the
first Defendant that the Claimant had a beneficial interest in the property”,

181 After 9 months living in Nutley Place without any regular contributions
182 Which it did not
183 In July 2018
Bates Number Bates No046 40 | Pa ge