ii. A meeting was arranged at the Claimant’s office to progress the matter. Agreement was reached in respect of two different sums with different purposes. iii. The first of the two sums was a loan in the sum of approximately £200,000 that was crystallised during the meeting first as £212,000 then as £202,000, and after the agreement had been drawn up further amended by the First Defendant during the course of the conversation with the solicitor to £202,407.95. This was the sum that was actually transferred. The Claimant understood that the reason that this sum was needed was to do with monies YLJT had borrowed in respect of works on the converted synagogue. This was because he had been told this by the First Defendant in a conversation a few days before the agreement was finalised. iv. This sum was a loan. It was to be repaid to the Claimant’s accountant so the repayment could be recorded. No set date for repayment was specified but the First Defendant had indicated that only short term use was needed possibly for as little as 14 days. v. In addition to this loan, there was discussed another transaction, whereby the Claimant would provide a sum of sterling that would be exchanged by the charity for US dollars and a sum of US dollars would be available for the Claimant in Jerusalem very shortly at a favourable exchange rate the charity could obtain. The Claimant understood that this transaction assisted the charity in enabling its assets in Jerusalem to be made available in the UK. It also provided a benefit for him as he had a need for dollars in Jerusalem at that time for an investment in a property transaction his family was undertaking. vi. This part of the agreement was reached in the following way. A sum was agreed in dollars to be collected by the Claimant. The First Defendant had a calculator with him. He knew the rates at which the charity could transfer sterling and convert it into dollars. The precise sum written down was reached by this calculation. This sum was £120,443.39. vii. At the First Defendant’s suggestion Mr Fisher was called in Jerusalem. The Claimant did not know or know of Mr. Fisher before this meeting. Mr. Fisher was the First Defendant’s business agent in Jerusalem. The purpose of phoning him was for the First Defendant to satisfy the Claimant that the Trust had dollars ready for transfer in its Israel bank account. He was also told that Mr. Fisher was a businessman of substance in Israel who could be of assistance to the Claimant. The First Defendant used a mobile phone to call Mr. Fisher and broadcast the conversation on his speaker facility. viii. The meeting proceeded by way of the following sequence: first, discussion; second, the telephone call to Mr Fisher; third the agreement was concluded and was written down; fourth execution when there was a call to the Claimant’s solicitor requesting him to make a CHAPS transfer into the Trust’s bank account.