unusual way the YLJT did business as a charity although both these issues took up a great deal of the pre trial interlocutory process and much of the cross examination at hearing. Conclusions Issue 2: the Corporate point 94. A significant part of the Defence case has been that even if, the monies paid to the trust were a loan, they were not the money of Rabbi Meisels but of one or more of his companies and it is the companies and not the Claimant personally who would be entitled to the return of them. My conclusions on this issue have to some extent been prefigured above by my conclusions on the question of a receipt [78] and [91] above. I reject this argument for a number of reasons. 95. First, on the evidence of the transactions themselves, none of the parties to them or those who arranged for the transfer of the funds thought that this was a company payment. The following points can be noted: i. Any dealings that the First Defendant had prior to either the payments in October or December were with the Claimant personally. There is no suggestion that he was soliciting a gift from one of his companies. ii. Both transfers were made through David Wineman client account. The extracts from the client account ledgers that the Defendant’s sought in 2006, demonstrate that the client was Rabbi Meisels rather than one of his companies. The CHAPS payment for £202,407.95 was made from Client Account M 15231 Meisels and left a balance of £162.15. The funds appear to have come from the sale of 2a Belfast Road, N.16. The payment of £120,443.39 was made from Account M 15294 Mr. M Meisels. The funds appear to relate to the sale of a commercial property in Salford. The transfer left a balance of £2,597.27. iii. 2a Belfast Road was a property that had been purchased and sold by Gilda Estates. The Claimant was a Director of this company. The Claimant’s wife was the shareholder in Gilda Estates, but it is clear that the Claimant was the dominant personality in terms of giving instructions and the dealing with the funds. iv. In a letter of 26th April 2007, written in response to orders for specific disclosure made against the Claimant, Mr. Brahams of David Wineman, confirmed that “I have acted for you since 1999. By the time these payments were made, you and I had a regular course of dealing where it was accepted that I would not get written instructions to make payments but that I would rely on your instructions by telephone since we were at that time used to dealing with one another and I recognised your voice. Having received such instructions my practice would have been to make a careful note and to confirm what was done by fax or letter at a later date. There would not have be any written documents from you authorising or directing me to make these transfers”