Page 99 - Combined file Solheim

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

Like last month, I will lend you another month of maintenance you are court ordered to pay for
Louise and the children. This is money which I lend you for now, because I don’t want to see
your children suffer”

60 The FD was always very grateful for the Claimant’s assistance but worried that
24
APMS would renege on in his debts. She resolved that if this happened she would
assume responsibility for the debt. She maintains this position .
25

61 The email is significant for another reason because it again demonstrates the
Claimant’s cunning. He knew, beyond doubt, that his deposit of £500,000 had
been into the main mortgage account and could not be withdrawn. He also knew
that “account attached to the flexible mortgage” was already at its limits (of
£20,000) and could not be touched. The email shows he knew the difference.

62 He knew the email was a sham and that Barclays would not release a penny.

8. GIFTS GENERALLY

63 The Claimant has a distasteful track record of making gifts and then grabbing them
back. See McKApp paragraph 214 et seq. The most significant example is £500,000
“gift” but the Claimant also appointed the FD as a director of CRS Aviation Ltd
26
and allocated 50% of the shares to her. After he decamped, and without any
discussion, he removed her as director and snatched back her shares. He had done
almost the same thing in his divorce from his first wife with her Cruisin’ shares (see
McKApp paragraph 218). The Claimant appears to be a fan of déjà vu.

64 He also gave the FD his deceased mother’s wedding ring – having recovered it
from his ex-wife to give to the FD- but is currently trying to snatch it back on the
grounds that is needed urgently on compassionate grounds by his siblings. In truth
it has probably been earmarked for his current bride to be. More déjà vu!

9. CONCLUSIONS

65 The evidence shows that this claim is contrived and false. The Claimant has used
the legal process as a weapon to harass the FD and her family, including a threat to
serve papers on Christmas Eve and a false Order - stamped 28 August 2019 (see
th
Exhibit D) and served a day later, that required the FD to deliver up:

 “the Claimant’s flying records, his children’s birth certificates and personal files”
by 4.00 on 28 August 2019!!;
th
 all documentation (much of it privileged) relating to her divorce hearings within
14 days;

Page10
The Order was also sent to the Second Defendant who was about to comply.

24 Which enabled her two youngest children to remain in school
Bates Number Bates No099
25
There is an arithmetical error and a slight overclaim
26 The company he formed to hold his income as a ground training instructor