The Hon Mr. Justice Blake : Introduction 1. On the 23rd December 2004 Mr. Lichtman (the First Defendant) visited the office of Rabbi Meisels (the Claimant) by prior invitation. Following a discussion, the Claimant telephoned the offices of the solicitor whom he employed for property dealings and instructed him to make immediate payment over by CHAPS transfer to the bank account of a registered charity Yetev Lev Jerusalem Trust (YLJT) of two sums of money namely £120,433.39 and £202,407.05. The question for determination in this court is what were the nature of those transactions? 2. On the 19th June 2006, after unsuccessful attempts had been made to arbitrate the matter in the rabbinical court, the Claimant issued proceedings for the return to him of these moneys. The First Defendant is and was a trustee of YLJT and its principal fundraiser and manager. The Claimant sues the First Defendant both in a personal capacity and a trustee of YLJT, and sues the Second and Third Defendants solely because they were trustees of the YLJT at the relevant time. 3. The Claimant alleges that the sums he transferred to the YLJT were personal loans made by him, and that this is reflected in an informal handwritten document prepared during the meeting on the 23 rd December by the First Defendant at the Claimant’s request. The Defendants contend that both the sums transmitted were voluntary donations or gifts to the YLJT whose essential purpose was the distribution of funds in Israel for charitable purposes there. They further contend that as the funds appear to have come from bank accounts connected with the Claimant’s property companies, the Claimant has failed to show that he is the person entitled to repayment by the charity, even if the sums were not gifts. 4. It is common ground first, that as the Claimant brings these proceedings the burden is on him to satisfy the court he is entitled to the sums claimed; second, that in so far as the activities of the First Defendant in soliciting money from the Claimant were activities done in his capacity as fund raiser for the charity, his acts and any agreement to which he was party will bind the charity and its trustees, although the Second and Third Defendants were not party to the conversation on the 23 rd December and the consequent arrangements. 5. With this brief introduction of the issues, this judgment will now turn to consider the wider background, the disputed evidence and the legal context, before reaching the conclusions on the outcome. The Background to the Claim 6. All the parties to this claim are members of the extreme orthodox Hasidic Jewish community located in Stamford Hill London N 16. The Defendants are active supporters of the Satmar Hasidic movement. Of course, the religious identity of the parties is irrelevant to the application of the civil law. However, the cultural background to this case provides some explanation of the particular issues in these proceedings. What follows is taken from either the uncontested evidence of the Defendants or the broader history set out in the wikipedia online entry on Satmar at