His Honour Judge Simpkiss : Introduction 1. The Claimant and the Defendants are distant second cousins, the Defendants are brothers. The Claimant and the Defendants did not know each other before the events leading up to the contract, although they were vaguely aware of each other’s existence as family members. The Claimant brings this claim to recover sums of money that he says are due to him under a written contract entered into between them on 22 nd November 2014 (“the contract”). Under the contract the Claimant agreed to provide finance for Lee Chudson (“Mr. Chudson”) to carry out research for the purpose of supporting claims for compensation in Germany in relation to assets seized by the Nazi regime. In consideration for this finance, the Defendants agreed that they would reimburse the Claimant for the expenses and fees paid to Mr. Chudson and also to 30% of the net sums awarded in compensation after deducting certain expenses. It is common ground that the Defendants are refusing to permit any sums to be paid out to the Claimant, either in respect of expenses and fees that he says that he paid or incurred to Mr. Chudson or any share in the award that was ultimately obtained. The contract is governed by the Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the court directed that a report should be obtained from a jointly instructed expert, a retired judge Hon Allan van Gestel (“Judge van Gestel”), whose last public position was to preside over the Superior Court’s Business Litigation Session. 2. The Claimant is a senior partner in the firm of Duane Morris LLP in Boston Massachusetts. He has acted in person throughout, instructing his counsel, Mr. Oliver, under the direct access scheme. The Defendants were represented by Humphries Kerstetter LLP until 24 May 2017, then by Mayo Wynne Baxter LLP until they came off the record on 13th June 2017 and in person since then and at the trial. They instructed Mr. Darton and Mr. Woodhead under the direct access scheme for the trial. The Defence was drafted by different counsel at the time that Humphries Kerstetter were on the record. 3. It is easier to understand the issues in the case with knowledge of the background facts which I will now turn to. Although the amount at stake in this case is relatively low for a High Court trial, a voluminous amount of documentation has been produced, much of it not relevant and not referred to. The witness statements are also very long and contain matters which are either not relevant or are in fact inadmissible as evidence in relation to the issues that arise, for example, subjective views about what the parties intended the contract to mean. This case therefore appears to be much more complex than it is or ought to be. 4. In relation to the instructions of Judge van Gestel, there was a dispute between Mr. Darton and Mr. Oliver. Mr. Darton submitted that the only instructions came from the Claimant and that the questions posed were not the Defendants’. I was informed by Mr. Oliver that the reason for this was that the Claimant produced draft instructions and submitted them to the Defendants for their agreement or for them to suggest amendments. They did not respond and at a hearing before Mr. Justice Ouseley in the applications court in June 2017 there was some discussion and Mr. Darton argued, rightly and successfully, that the instructions should not contain references to authorities. These were removed. Mr. Oliver expected that there would then be some discussion outside the court to agree instructions, but Mr. Darton insisted that they go