Page 90 - Combined file Solheim

CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT
For hearing on 18 August 2020
th

1. INTRODUCTION

1 The First Defendant (FD) can no longer afford legal representation and is acting as
a Litigant in Person. She apologises to the Court for any breaches of protocol,
language or formatting . This document is not intended to cover all of the
1
evidence, but to highlight some important aspects.

2 This document is cross referenced to detail in the narrative accompanying the Mc
Kenzie friend application (McKApp) in Section A of the Court Bundle and to the
attached exhibits A to E.

3 The Defendant has made every effort to settle this dispute amicably and to
negotiate at every stage: culminating in a round table meeting between Counsel on
27 July 2020. This proved to be a waste of time and money.
th
4 This paper has been prepared overnight on 17 -18 August 2020 in response to the
th
th
Claimant’s Position Paper received on 17 August 2020.
th
5 The Claimant has contended from the outset that £500,000 paid into her mortgage
account on 21st December 2016 was an unconditional voluntary transfer (ie a
“gift”):

 initiated entirely by the Claimant for his own advantage;

 to conceal probably genuine personal accident compensation of at least
£525,000, he had received from AIG;

 to mislead Diamond Insurance into paying duplicative personal accident
compensation of an expected £1,400,000.

6 The Defendant’s concerns of suspected fraud were made abundantly clear to the
Claimant at an early stage in these proceedings. He has never denied them: instead
arguing that the source of his funding was irrelevant.

7 The Defendant contends that funding is critical because the Claimant’s admitted
dishonesty (See paragraphs 39-40) goes to his credibility and his propensity for
making false claims: shows his intention for making the transfer (through a
convoluted concealment process: See Exhibit B) and thereafter his motivation for
refusing to give evidence in the Defendant’s divorce proceedings: even to the
extent of stating whether the £500,000 was a loan or a gift.

8 The Claimant is also concerned that if she were to agree to (or was ordered by the
Court) to repay some or all of the funds “gifted” to her, Diamond Insurance, or
regulators could launch a proceeds of crime action that would undermine such a
settlement. For this reason, she has repeatedly asked the Claimant to produce
evidence that his claims were honestly reported to all the insurers involved, but he
has refused to do so. She has also asked his Solicitors to provide any form of
Page1
alternative assurance but they, too, have refused to do so.

Bates Number Bates No090
1 And this being written in the third person