v. There are other documents from the accountants to Gilda Estates to the effect that Rabbi Meisels was entitled to draw for his personal use some of money from Gilda Estates. Nobody with knowledge of the affairs of the Claimant’s companies seems to have been concerned about the transactions he authorised. If the Claimant has to account to anybody else for any money he receives back from the Defendants that is not a matter that arises in these proceedings. vi. It is clear that the Claimant and his wife were in substance the sole and joint owners of the companies established by the Claimant to undertake property transactions Gilda Estates and UK 2000 Limited. They were able to draw down funds in the companies accounts and transfer them for their personal use. There is no suggestion that Mrs Meisels or anyone else connected with the company has protested against these transfers. Mrs Meisels is clearly fully aware of the history of the matter having made a witness statement although not in the end called as a witness 96. Second, the Defendants accept that if the sums had been transferred from the company account into the personal account of the Claimant and from there to the charity, then there would be no issue that any funds to be returned would be returned to him. I am satisfied that the fact that the funds came from the David Wineman client account make no difference. Rabbi Meisels was the client and was able to give instructions without more. 97. The Defendants have obtained searches of the companies of which the Claimant is a Director or shareholder at Companies House. This material was in part used to point out that company accounts are substantially in arrears, that companies have been struck off in the past for non compliance with statutory duties, that a number of companies have charges and management orders made against them. The Defendants argue that if the accounts had been kept up to date it might have shown that the payments were made by the company as charitable donations. There were such charitable payments made in 2002. They also submit that the letters from the Claimants solicitor and accountant suggesting that the Claimant was entitled to draw on the company’s accounts are not reflected in the accounts to date. I accept that these points may show marked informality by the Claimant in his business dealings, and some cavalier responses to his duties of record keeping as a director. They do not persuade me either that the payments were in truth made by the companies or that the First Defendant thought at the time in either October or December 2004 that he was dealing with the company rather than the Claimant, whatever he may subsequently have told Mr Weiss. 98. Third, by this plea the First Defendant is in essence seeking to undermine the agreement and deny that it reflected the true nature of the transactions on the 23 rd December. I have concluded that the agreement is the distinguishing feature of the December transactions and was intended to reflect the understanding of the parties. The agreement is with Rabbi Meisels personally and not with any company that he controlled. If the First Defendant thought he was dealing with a company he might have expected the agreement to say so and there to be a formal resolution of the Directors before receiving any payment. There was none and no time for any to have been obtained.