Page 9 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PARTS 1 to 3: INTRODUCTION
15. LPJS was willing to waive any privilege there might be over evidence in her divorce
12
case, providing the Claimant was prepared to reciprocate in relation to his insurance
claims, sources of funds and financial affairs She wanted total openness: her lawyers
13.
wanted to fight over privilege and argue esoteric points of TOLATA and estoppel.

16. The suggested protocol would have given the Claimant the opportunity to establish the
legitimacy of his funds - as well as his claimed £500,000 TOLATA “contribution to
property” – quietly, and confidentially, without publicly questioning the legitimacy of his
insurance claims and funding.

17. LPJS’s solicitors failed to relay the suggested protocol to the Claimant and instead engaged
in costly correspondence to chaffer over dates for a meeting “to negotiate a settlement”
with no agreed agenda or protocol, a poor grasp of the facts and little chance of success.

18. For this, and a multitude of other reasons – including an implied fee budget of £100,000
to £200,000 - which would inevitably drive case to a High Court trial – LPJS lost
confidence in her solicitors. She and MJC made their views clear and refused to agree the
proposed budgets. They threatened to withdraw and LPJS eagerly agreed .
14
19. On 26th September 2019 LPJS advised the Court (and the other parties) that - because she
would not qualify for legal aid and could not afford to start afresh with another firm of
solicitors - she had no option but to act as a litigant in person. She pleads the Court’s
indulgence for any breaches of protocol in this and other submissions.

20. On 14 October 2019, MJC wrote (on LPJS’s behalf) to the Claimant’s solicitors:
th

(a) offering his assistance to recover the personal property the Claimant had
supposedly left behind when he flounced from Nutley Place in July 2018 and
attached a summary schedule asking the Claimant to provide more accurate
descriptions and to specify where the items were last seen;

(b) asking them to clarify the scope of the “Costs and Case Management and
15
Financial Dispute Resolution-type Hearing” which they had suggested;

(c) repeating LPJS’s draft protocol for a round table meeting;

21. On 22 October 2019, the Claimant’s solicitors acknowledged MJC’s letter and said they
nd
were taking instructions.

22. They responded on 13 November 2019 stating;
th

“my client has decided to wait until the hearing of 28 January 2020 to see if a
th
settlement can be reached---- rather than to incur the additional cost of a joint
meeting in the current circumstances”.

12 And still is
13 Including his will, insurance claims and bank accounts
14 In fairness LPJS’s solicitors would argue that their senior partner had been taken ill and that MJC was a difficult
client who was unwilling to adjust
15 Which they have not done
Bates Number Bates No009 3 | Page