law permits the court to look at extrinsic evidence to establish what property the parties intended. 61. Bearing in mind that the court cannot take into account subjective intention, I now turn to see if there is any extrinsic evidence that can assist in interpreting Clause 8. In the first place, if the letter JCC were removed from the definition of Posener Property in the recital then the difficulty would disappear and there would be no tension between the recital and Clause 8. One way of dealing with the problem might be to ignore the reference to JCC on the basis that it is inconsistent with Clause 8 and undermines it. 62. The other way is to look at the factual matrix at the time the contract was executed. This means examination of the emails immediately before the new wording was inserted. I explained earlier how the negotiations had broken down following the drafting of the first version of the contract. What got the negotiations going again was Mr. Chudson’s email of 20th November 2014, which referred to open claims shown in letters from the JCC and the Bundesamt and that the Bundesamt thought that there may be other open claims. There is an express reference to Dr. Surner filing an application with the Bundesamt in respect of WSF&P real estate claims. Later that morning the Claimant emails the Defendants informing them that Mr. Chudson’s latest information is enough to enable the parties to go forward with “an agreement that will assist you in obtaining compensation from the JCC or any other agency/court as a result of Lee’s production of documents and Dr. Surner’s services”. The contract is attached to the email and contains Clause 8 with the added reference to Bundesamt awards. 63. In my judgment, there can be no doubt that by the time that the Defendants signed the contract, they intended that Posener Property would include all property in respect of which claims would be made (whether to the JCC, BADV or any other agency of German court) and that Clause 8 includes the Award which was made by the BADV which is the subject of these proceedings. The Defendants’ argument against this is an opportunistic attempt to avoid the obligations which they agreed with the Claimant, having taken advantage if Mr. Chudson and Dr. Surner’s services. 64. Subject to the remaining issues raised in the Defence and to the quantum issue, I hold that Clause 8 has been triggered and that the consequences set out in Clause 8 follow. The Code 1.18 issue 65. This issue can be dealt with relatively shortly. It is pleaded in the Defence that the Claimant is in breach of the Code with the result that the contract is unenforceable. The Defendants contend that the Claimant was acting for them in an attorney/client relationship and that the Code therefore applies. The breaches of the Code are then pleaded as follows: i) the terms of the contract giving rise to liability on the part of the Defendants to pay him a percentage of any award were not disclosed to them in a manner that could reasonably be understood by them; ii) the Claimant failed to advise them in writing or orally, that they should seek independent advice before entering into the contract;