evidence: 6 The parties presented starkly different accounts of their relationships, as well as their relationship with the Third Party to this suit, Mr Berger, during the period 2019 to 2020. Mr Berger did not appear in these proceedings. As I will explain in these written grounds, whether the Plaintiff could succeed in its claim ultimately turned on whether it could adduce sufficient evidence to support its account of the relationships between the parties and the obligations they owed each other. [...] Second, Mr Berger did not purport to be acting on the 1st Defendant’s behalf in his communications with the Plaintiff: that much was clear from the fact that other entities such as "SM Marketing" and "Kings Road Capital Corp Private Limited" had been named as the contracting party in the draft contracts which Mr Berger sent to the Plaintiff. [...] In addition, the Plaintiff claimed that while the Defendants initially asserted that Mr Berger unilaterally dictated the fees he earned on the processing of BHH’s transactions, the 2nd Defendant had accepted that both Mr Berger and the 1st Defendant agreed to the allocation of Mr Berger’s fees – and this was consistent with Mr Berger being an "agent".