64. It may well be that this letter was attempting to bring the claim as formulated against the Trust in the BDZ proceedings to the attention of the most wealthy of the trustees. On his version of the text exchanges with the First Defendant, the Claimant may well have believed that interest had been agreed to be paid given the longer than expected period for repayment of the loan. The exchange rate quoted may well indicate that the Claimant was unfamiliar with the exchange rates available to the Trust in December 2004. 65. In the meantime the proceedings in the rabbinical court in the US were not progressing. The First Defendant had written on the 11 th March 2006 naming his arbitrator in the proceedings. On the 26 th March 2006, the BDZ responded indicating that the person nominated had denied being contacted by the First Defendant to act as such: “in the light of the above, it turns out that you are postponing the Din Tora time and again on various pretexts that make no sense at all, therefore (the BDZ) grant (the Claimant) permission to levy an attachment in order to save what is his”. 66. On the 2nd April 2006 the BDZ having heard no further from the First Defendant granted the Claimant permission to sue in the civil courts. Although at the Second Defendant’s instigation, attempts were made to arbitrate the matter in the rabbinical court in the United Kingdom, the case thereafter proceeded in the civil court. The civil proceedings 67. On the 19th June 2006 the Claimant issued his own claim form seeking recovery of the sum claimed in Wineman letter (£322,443.39) as a debt from all three defendants for money due and owing. With interest this sum came to £360,410.62. The particulars of claim are dated the 6 th June 2006 and allege payment of the two sums of money to the First Defendant in his personal capacity or all three Defendants as trustees for the Trust pursuant to an agreement dated 23 rd December 2004. It is common ground that these particulars failed to accurately record the precise sums transferred in December and at the outset of the trial the Particulars were amended without opposition to reflect the true sum of £322,851.34 plus interest accrued to the date of issue of £37,786.87 and at a daily rate thereafter of £79.04. 68. A Defence of the First and Third Defendant was issued on the 20 th June 2006 by their solicitors. Three aspects of this pleading deserve highlighting. First, these Defendants deny receiving any money at all from the Claimant. They state the monies came from David Wineman’s client account, and are believed to have come from two companies Gilda Estates and UK 2000 Limited. The December 2004 agreement is not admitted and the Claimant is put to strict proof of it. Secondly, the fact that the Trust receives donations from time to time is pleaded and then it is said “accordingly any monies received are treated as donations unless otherwise stated” (emphasis supplied). No transfer with the intention of the transferor that the sums be treated as a donation is pleaded. Third, the currency transaction is denied and the meaning of the text exchanges in November 2005 is given thus “the context of the text messaging referred to another matter where the First Defendant and the Claimant were involved and where if the Claimant had placed monies in an interest bearing account he would earn 4% interest per year”. This looks like the suggestion of an investment