overdraft limit at the time was £150,000. Following transactions on the 20 th December involving withdrawals to the loan account and an urgent transfer of £50,015 to the Israeli Account, the overdraft stood at £136,291.27. This was then paid off by a payment in to the account of £250,000 from the bank by way of a loan. There was a further payment out of the account that day of the further sum of £110,000 by way of inter account transfer to the Israeli account. After further payments out by way of a standing order, at the end of the 22 nd December the account showed a modest overdraft of £10,342.77 but in addition a bank loan was repayable in the sum of £250,000. 32. The Claimant submits that in December just as in October 2004, the charity had a desperate need for funds and this was the context of a second approach by the First Defendant to the Claimant for assistance within two and a half months. 33. The Defendants state that this was just a common state of affairs. The charity conducted its transactions raising money by loans and gifts to promote its purposes and there was no particular financial crisis calling for extraordinary measures. In particular no urgent payments were due to be made in respect of the building works on the converted synagogue 42 Craven Park Walk. There is a letter in the documents disclosed from the trustees of the Craven Park synagogue stating that building works were started in February 2005 but the costs of these was born by them. 34. It is common ground that there had been contact between the First Defendant and the Claimant as to the possibility of some further money being made available before the meeting on the 23rd December. The First Defendant says he was led to believe that a similar sum as previously would be forthcoming. The Claimant says the context was the need to pay for building works on the synagogue and specific sum requested. 35. On the Thursday 23rd December there was the meeting described above at [1] of this judgment. It is clear that the outcome of the meeting was that the Claimant telephoned his solicitor David Wineman and instructed him to make a CHAP’s payment to the Trust’s National Westminster bank account of the sums £120,433.39 and £202,407.05. The Trust’s bank statement shows these sums as paid in from David Wineman client account on that date. The first sum has no reference other than the source of the payment, the second has the reference Gilda Estates. 36. During the meeting a manuscript text was written in Hebrew recording the outcome of the discussions. The preamble giving the names of the parties was written by the Claimant. The bulk of the text was written by First Defendant. There was some amendments of the sums of money described initialled by him. The note was then signed by the Claimant and the First Defendant. 37. Following a dispute as to the true meaning of the Hebrew text, in which the agreement was drawn up, Mr. Jared Greenblatt was jointly appointed as expert translator who has experience in rendering documents including commercial documents from Hebrew into English. He says that translation is not an exact science, and it is sometimes necessary to choose the most appropriate English word according to the context and apparent intention of the authors of the document reflected in the Hebrew word. He rendered the text in English thus: Heading: