Page 98 - Combined file Solheim

CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT
For hearing on 18 August 2020
th
 Even this was untrue because he drove to Hampshire and hid himself away on
an unscheduled training session until the hearing was over.

52 He was eventually persuaded (on 19 May 2018) to prepare a sworn and
th
witnessed schedule of his assets, liabilities, income and expenses : but again, he
23
prevaricated and prepared an incomplete draft that was not signed, nor witnessed
and did not specify whether he considered the £500,000 to be a loan or a gift.

53 The FD’s father spoke to the Claimant who invited him to amend it: which he did.
A “final version” was emailed to the Claimant at 20.11 on 19 May 2018 with a
th
request that he should call the FD’s father if he had any problems with it. On 20
th
May 2018 at 14.58, the Claimant emailed the FD’s father to say that the revised
schedule “looks good to me. The figures I have provided shows that his (the FD’s
ex-husband) fabricated figures are all in la la land”. The Claimant implied that he
had signed the schedule and had left it for the Defendant to bring to Court on the
following morning

54 On the morning of 21 May 2018, [on the way to Court for the Final Hearing] the
st
Defendant handed her father a schedule “Assets and Earnings ” (Exhibit E). It was
unsworn, undated and not witnessed. Counsel decided it should not be presented
to the Court.

55 IN ANY CASE, THE FINAL HEARING ACCEPTED THAT THE £500,000 WAS A
GIFT AND REDUCED FD’S LIFELONG MAINTENANCE ACCORDINGLY.

56 Around 4 weeks after the Final Hearing, the Claimant made up his mind that he
would vamoose, and nothing would stop him claiming that the £500,000 was a
loan: or better still “a contribution towards property”. What a difference a day
makes!

57 If the Claimant had simply told the Final Hearing (as he is saying now) that the
£500,000 was a loan or a contribution towards property there is very strong
possibility that the FDs lifetime maintenance from her ex-husband would have
remained in place or would not have been so savagely cut. If he had not delayed
his desertion the FD would be £765,000 better off.

58 The reason he refused to participate in the Final Hearing was – most likely - to hide
his dishonesty. The Court will be asked to consider whether it makes him liable for
the FD’s losses and whether he is estopped from denying the promises of
commitment on which the FD relied.

7. LOANS OF £81,000

59 Evidence shows that most of the Claimant’s loans were made to APMS (the
Defendant’s ex-husband) and not to the FD. For example, on 3 October 2017,
rd
the Claimant emailed APMS to say:

“Could you please contact Barclays ASAP before you go on holiday, see if they can release some
of the money attached to the flexible mortgage to pay for your maintenance until you sort your Page9

Bates Number Bates No098
23 Which would require him to state whether the £500,000 was a loan or a gift