Meisels v Lichtman & Anor [2008] EWHC 661 (QB) (09 April 2008)

Meisels v Lichtman & Anor [2008] EWHC 661 (QB) (09 April 2008)

The court found that the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the sums transferred were loans rather than gifts. The contemporaneous agreement was ambiguous, and the surrounding circumstances, including the lack of a clear demand for repayment and the conduct of the parties, did not support the Claimant's case. The Claimant's evidence was found unreliable in key respects, and the Defendants' account was preferred. Accordingly, the sums were held to be gifts, and the claim for repayment failed.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 661
Parties
Claimant: Moishe Meisels; First Defendant: Menachem Lichtman; Second Defendant: Berish Berger; Third Defendant: Solomon Weiss
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Recovery of Money Allegedly Loaned to a Charity / High Court Trial, Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Characterisation of Payments (loan Vs Gift), Burden of Proof in Civil Claims, Intention in Charitable Donations, Interpretation of Informal Agreements
Charity Law Contract Law Trusts Characterisation of Payments (loan Vs Gift) Burden of Proof in Civil Claims Intention in Charitable Donations Interpretation of Informal Agreements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moishe Meisels

Claimant

Menachem Lichtman

First Defendant

Berish Berger

Second Defendant

Solomon Weiss

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Recovery of Money Allegedly Loaned to a Charity / High Court Trial, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the sums of £120,433.39 and £202,407.05 transferred by the Claimant to YLJT on 23 December 2004 loans or gifts?
  2. 2 Is the Claimant entitled to repayment of these sums from the Defendants?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the sums transferred were loans rather than gifts. The contemporaneous agreement was ambiguous, and the surrounding circumstances, including the lack of a clear demand for repayment and the conduct of the parties, did not support the Claimant's case. The Claimant's evidence was found unreliable in key respects, and the Defendants' account was preferred. Accordingly, the sums were held to be gifts, and the claim for repayment failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for repayment of £322,851.34 plus interest is dismissed.
  • No order for repayment is made against any Defendant.