Page 7 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PARTS 1 to 3: INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION

1. A “Costs and Case Management Conference and Financial Dispute Resolution type
hearing (CMC-FDR) has been Ordered to take place in the County Court at Brighton on
28th January 2020 at 11.00am, with an estimated duration of four hours.

2. That Order was based on a submission made on 2 August 2019 by the Claimant’s
nd
solicitors to LPJS’s then solicitors and repeated to Deputy District Judge Harvey on 14 th
3
2
August 2019 that:
“At all stages the parties must consider settling this litigation by any means of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (including a round table conferences, early neutral
evaluation, mediation and arbitration); any party not engaging in such means
proposed by another is to serve a witness statement giving reasons why within 21 days
of receipt of that proposal. That witness statement must not be shown to the trial
judge until questions of costs arise”.

3. LPJS’s solicitors questioned – unconvincingly - whether Family Court rules should apply
4
and proposed a round table meeting between the parties as a first step. This was at LPJS’s
request, for the reasons explained below. She wanted to reach a settlement but was
worried that any agreement could be reversed if the source of the Claimant’s funds was
not legitimate .
5
4. Judge Harvey considered the submissions and ordered a Court managed CMC-FDR
hearing on the first available date after 1 October 2019. This turned out to be 28 th
st
January 2020.

2 ROUND TABLE MEETING
5. There was confusion over the processing of the Order (resulting in conflicting versions
being issued by the Court); but neither refers to a round table meeting.

6. LPJS’s solicitors advised that the case was not - in their opinion - a matter for the Trusts of
Land & Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) or for the Family Court and that this
course had been proposed only because it was “within the Claimant’s solicitor’s comfort
zone”. However, despite LPJS’s requests to do so, her solicitors did not propose an
alternative course and appeared determined to proceed to a full trial.

7. On 19th August 2019, LPJS’s solicitors suggested that “it would be advantageous to hold a
round table meeting (with clients participating) prior to the CMC-FDR session to assist in
narrowing the issues between the parties”. Surprisingly, they did not raise any TOLATA or
Family Court concerns, nor suggest an agenda or protocol.

2 Dawson Hart of Uckfield, East Sussex
3 Referred to hereafter as “solicitors” although they are no longer retained by LPJS
4 “Legal advisers”= LJPS’s then solicitors and the barrister they had engaged
5 Her solicitors did not mention this to the Judge
Bates Number Bates No007 1 | Page