Page 48 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 8: DETAILED COMMENTS
 The Claimant asked for, and LPJS gave him, the name of the firm that drafted
her will (Core Law);

 Paragraph 6 of the Claimant’s REPLY (dated and sworn by him on 30 July
th
2019) states:
“The Claimant specifically denies knowledge of, or being consulted about, any
will which the first Defendant may have executed”

This is a lie.

205. On 5 June 2017, the Claimant’s bank account shows that he paid Core Law £210.00
th
via a Fast Pay online transaction which is believed to relate to his will and was a direct
result of his denied conversation with LPJS ;
184

206. In May 2018, the Claimant finally agreed to produce a sworn statement of his assets,
liabilities, income and expenditure for presentation to the Final Hearing of LPJS’s
divorce. It fails to mention any interest in Nutley Place or in the £500,000 in the
mortgage account.

207. If this case goes for trial LPJS will ask for disclosure of the Claimant’s will and evidence
from Core Law.

12 EVIDENCE IN LPJS’S DIVORCE HEARINGS

The Claimant’s lawyers have made great play of the fact that they intend to push for disclosure
of potentially privileged evidence in LPJS’s divorce proceedings to show that the £500,000 was
described as a loan. Her ex-solicitors wanted a massive budget to go through every page of
the divorce evidence to explore if privilege should be asserted.

LPJS was totally against this and believed that all relevant evidence should be made
available to the Court.

208. Statements, pleadings and exhibits in LPJS’s divorce case variously and inconsistently
describe the £500,000 as both a loan and gift. This is only because the Claimant refused
to commit to a position, to make a statement or give evidence.

209. At the time LPJS’s believed her relationship with the Claimant was permanent and that
their future would be together. APMS threatened to withdraw the £500,000 from the
joint mortgage account, arguing it had been a gift and LPJS’s asset.

210. It was therefore in both the claimant’s and LPJS’s interest - if that were the case -to
produce incontrovertible evidence that the £500,000 was a loan. The Claimant
obstinately refused to do this or to give evidence. The ambivalence and inconsistencies 185
in LPJS’s evidence – which are admitted - result entirely from the Claimant’s wish to
conceal his skulduggery.

184 In fact he sent LPJS a WhatsApp message while he was in Core Law’s office to say that he had just signed his will
185 Which are admitted
Bates Number Bates No048 42 | Pa ge