on its account. This was probably a cheque in favour of a company called UK Isles Limited who had loaned money to the Trust. That company’s loan was repaid the same day by CHAPS transfer and the ability to repay the loan was the result of the £200,000 received from Rabbi Meisels. 26. It is clear that the £200,000 was given as a result of an approach by the First Defendant to the Claimant personally. There is no suggestion that the Defendant had solicited the directors of one of the Claimant’s property companies for a corporate donation or that the Defendant had ever said that one of his companies was making a donation. There was no agreement drawn up to reflect this transfer or a receipt given afterwards to reflect it. It was recorded by Mr. Weiss in the Trust’s ledgers as a donation. 27. Mr. Weiss had no direct dealings with the Claimant about this transaction. He told the court in evidence that he assumed the transferred sum was a donation until he heard to the contrary from the First Defendant who was solely responsibility for raising funds of whatever form. In his witness statement he says he was told by First Defendant that the money in fact came from one of the Claimant’s companies but he did not know which one. 28. If this recollection is accurate it is difficult to see why the First Defendant should have concluded that this was a corporate donation rather than a personal one. The mere fact that the money came from David Wineman would not have led to a conclusion either way. In particular there is no record to suggest that the money came from a particular corporate account held by David Wineman. 29. Many of the problems and disputes relating to the second transaction are pre- figured in the disputes that emerged at trial about this first one. There is substance in the Defendants’ complaints that the Claimant has failed to make clear in his witness statements his case as to the first transactions, and has failed to disclose documents which exist or once existed that he should have realised were relevant to the trial of the present issues. This is one reason, why I was invited to treat the Claimant’s unsupported oral testimony about disputed events with particular care. 30. Undoubtedly, the first transaction is a significant part of the background to the second one. There are similarities between the dispute about the first transaction and the second, there are also differences. It does not follow that both transactions should be treated the same. It is notable that this first transaction:i. involved no written agreement signed by the parties; ii. was made at a time when the YLJT sterling account at the National Westminster bank was overdrawn to the sum of £154,903.70; and iii. whatever the nature of the transaction, it did not result in any proceedings between the parties either in the rabbinical court or the civil courts. The disputed transaction 31. On 17th December 2004 the bank account of the YLJT at the National Westminster Bank showed an overdraft of £106,171.38. The First Defendant recalls that the