iii) The Claimant was in repudiatory breach of contract by refusing to fund Mr. Chudson’s trip to Berlin in July 2015 and this breach was accepted, relieving the Defendants from performance of the contract. iv) The award was not made as a result of any research carried out by Mr. Chudson and therefore no sums are due to the Claimant. v) The amount claimed has not been proved or adequately accounted for. The witnesses 37. I heard oral evidence from the Claimant and the First Defendant. Rather surprisingly, the Second Defendant, who attended the trial, did not give evidence, but I cannot draw any conclusions from this, nor do I. The First Defendant said that he knew more than anyone else in court about claims to the BADV and he also took the lead role as between him and his brother in the negotiations. The other live witness was the Claimant. Mr. Chudson did not attend to be cross examined by the Defendants’ counsel. It was said that he had asked for a fee of £10,000 in order to attend. Mr. Darton could not oppose my reading of his evidence, but said that I should place little weight on it. Where there are legitimate issues about his evidence, then I must treat it with great care. His emails show clearly that he is someONE who reacts very quickly to incidents and situations that don’t fit in with his ideas and plans and expresses himself in colourful language – jumping to conclusions which are not always justified. In the event, it is his evidence of the work that he carried out on the Claimant’s instructions and his computation of expenses and fees which is the most relevant evidence and I will treat this with care, when I come to that issue. 38. The Claimant was cross-examined for nearly 2 days. He is a Massachusetts attorney who specialises in inheritance matters. I took from this that in England he would be described as a “private client” lawyer. He gave his evidence very carefully and was quick to correct minor errors by counsel, for example use of pounds sterling or euros instead of dollars and other matters. He was very precise in his evidence. He was challenged in a number of areas with a view to suggesting that he had acted in conflict of interest with the Defendants, withheld from them that he was in discussion with Margot’s lawyers in Rio de Janeiro, knew full well about the potential for a claim to the BADV and somehow deliberately withheld that information from the Defendants at the time he presented the contract to them. Much of this was very unfair, and not open to the Defendants on the pleadings. There is no claim to rectification on either side, the Defendants are not claiming to set aside the contract for fraud, misrepresentation or mistake and the Code 1.18 claim that they now seek to put does not in my judgment run. 39. It was also put to the Claimant that he deliberately made claims, subsequently withdrawn, to sums which he wasn’t entitled to. I found the Claimant’s evidence straightforward and honest and found it much more reliable than the First Defendant. The Claimant can be criticised on 2 counts: firstly, as he accepts, he has made a mistake in drafting the contract in not amending the recitals; secondly, he failed to enter a clear agreement with Mr. Chudson about his charges, (for example hourly rate) before work started and did not make arrangements for proper accounting by Mr. Chudson. If anything, this points towards his not acting as a lawyer in this matter, but in his personal capacity with the common objective with the Defendants of obtaining