iii) His own expenses and costs incurred as a result of the Defendants’ breach of contract. 101. Clauses 5 and 8 of the Contract provide for the payment of Expenses out of the Award. Apart from Dr. Surner’s fees, which were deducted from the Award before Dr. Surner paid the balance to the Defendants, these include Mr. Chudson’s travel expenses and charges for researching archives as well as any other expenses incurred by the Claimant in performance of the services under the Contract. 102. In the Amended Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pleads that he has made the following payments, for which he is entitled to reimbursement: 103. i) $71,377 between 30th October 2014 and 11th August 2016 to or for the benefit of Mr. Chudson in researching the archives or prosecuting the claims; ii) $1,962 to Brazilian counsel and Dr. Plagemann to obtain a relevant Vollmacht and for information; He also pleads that pursuant to Clause 9, he is entitled to recover expenditure for his own time as an attorney seeking to enforce the contract, including consulting counsel in Germany, Ireland and the UK and communicating with Mr. Chudson and Dr. Surner. Under this head he claims the following: i) counsel’s fees in Germany, Ireland and the UK totalling $9,400; ii) $2,600 payments from Mr. Chudson to obtain documents to support his claim against the Defendants; 104. Rather curiously, the Amended Particulars of Claim leave it open as to the amount that the court should award for the Claimant’s own time spent on this case. Originally, he had pleaded that he had spent 18 hours recoverable time but on 14 th June 2017 this was deleted. There are therefore no pleadings of the time he spent. His witness statement was similarly unspecific. At the start of the Claimant’s oral evidence, he handed up a schedule and an email which, he said, set out the sums he had paid towards the enforcement of the contract (in other words covered by Clause 9). The email, dated 2nd July 2017 contained his claim for personal time spent as an attorney. There was insufficient detail and it was all provided very late in the day. It would have been impossible for the Defendant to cross-examine him about any of these matters and a waste of the court’s time, during a 3 day trial, to deal with these issues. I therefore suggested that this aspect of the matter should be dealt with either by an inquiry before the Master or by a costs judge on assessment of costs. 105. In the light of the expert evidence of Massachusetts law my decision in relation to the section 9 claims is as follows: i) The Claimant is entitled to be indemnified for any expenses he has incurred with lawyers and others in order to recover the moneys due to him under the Contract, including the prosecution of this claim. He must establish that the various sums claimed were incurred to that end. This should be dealt with by an inquiry as he is entitled to damages equivalent to those sums;