59. On the 15th December 2005 a summons was issued by the BDZ for a Bin Torah on the 21st December. The summons was issued to the First Defendant representing Yetev Lev in Jerusalem the City of London. The summons contained no statement of a pleaded case against First Defendant. However, there was an associated property freezing order issued on the same date by the BDZ where the nature of the Claimant's claim is set out in the translation in the core bundles as “ has certain claims and demands against you in respect of the loan in the sum of $640,000 and is summoning you to a Bin Torah”. This is the first documentary record of the Claimant's assertions as to the meaning of the agreement signed 12 months previously. The two sums expressed in sterling in the December 2004 agreement are now expressed in US dollars. This may not be surprising as the arbitration was to be conducted in the USA. The two sterling sums amounted to £322,851 and translated into dollars at an exchange rate of 1.91 dollars to the pound come to something in the order of $613,417. I note that 12 months interest at 4% comes to $24,536 which together comes to $637,953. 60. The freezing order of the BDZ was wide ranging and covered the personal property of First Defendant as well as the property of the charity. This lead to a swift riposte from First Defendant. By fax on the same date the First Defendant protested that the “iskar” (that the parties agree can be rendered neutrally as “transaction”) was in respect of the activities of the Trust and not a personal one and that his home should not be subject to the freezing order. 61. The Claimant relies on this statement as evidence that the First Defendant regarded the subject of the dispute as an “iskar” or business transaction rather than a gift to a charity. Secondly, he points out that First Defendant did not take this opportunity to contradict the assertion of a loan and claim that the sums were gifts. Thirdly he did not complain that the proceedings being taken in the wrong jurisdiction, but merely that he was willing to submit to the rabbinical court in the United Kingdom. On the 18th December 2005 the First Defendant wrote to the BDZ stating that he was unable to make the hearing date proposed. Fourth, I note that there is no suggestion in the First Defendant’s response to the BZD that the sums in dispute were never given by the Claimant personally at all. 62. It seems that a letter was sent by David Wineman to the First Defendant in February 2006 but neither side can now find a copy of this letter. I am aware that David Wineman’s client files were stored in a facility that was the subject of fire damage and are incomplete. There is a copy of a letter sent by David Wineman to the Second Defendant Mr Berger on the 10 th February 2006. This states that loans amounting to £322,443.39 were advanced by the Claimant to the trustees of YLJT on the 23 rd December 2004. The sum loaned was said to be repayable in US dollars at the rate of $1.91 to the pound. Repayment of the loan is demanded within 14 days and the sum of $640,000 is sought including interest. 63. Although this letter gives an explanation for how the sum of $640,000 was arrived at, it does not reflect the 23rd December agreement in a number of respects. First, the sterling sums transferred were larger by £408 than the sum set out in the letter. Second, the agreement only provided for one sum transferred to be “handed over” in dollars and not both sums. Third, the exchange rate available to the Trust in December 2004 was a better rate than $1.91, and was likely to be something in the order of $1.96. Fourth, the agreement made no reference to interest being payable.