A solicitor is suing for libel damages over a claim that he was a "greedy incompetent and inefficient tosspot".

Martin Cray, whose firm practises from Edward Street, Brighton, also wants damages for a campaign of harassment he alleges was waged by Anthony Hancock.

He told Judge John Previte QC at London's High Court that he found the whole affair "extremely upsetting and embarrassing".

He said: "I've dealt with many criminal cases in the past. I've dealt with all sorts of people and the sheer venom in the way in which Mr Hancock expresses himself is really unique.

"I can honestly say I have never come across anyone quite like Mr Hancock.

"There's a venom to the way he expresses himself, the way that he acts.

"I was always aware, and Mr Hancock gave me enough evidence to understand it, that he was capable of almost anything.

"I find that extremely upsetting. It made me anxious in a way that I have never been in my professional career."

Mr Cray's counsel, Matthew Nicklin, told the court the solicitor had acted for Mr Hancock and his wife, Corinne, in a dispute with a bathroom firm.

The claim was settled at Brighton County Court in January 2003 on terms that the firm involved would make good the defects in the bathroom and would pay £7,050 as the couple's agreed costs.

Unfortunately, due to difficulties fixing up times between the experts who were agreeing the works to be carried out, they were not carried out promptly and, in April 2003, Mrs Hancock terminated Mr Cray's firm's instructions.

She expressed dissatisfaction with what she alleged was delay in concluding the matter and the level of the firm's charges. This formed the basis for a negligence claim against Mr Cray which is still pending.

In July 2003, Mr Hancock got involved and sent a letter to Mr Cray enclosing a leaflet attacking the bathroom firm.

The letter read: "Dear Cray, Your turn next for an expose you greedy incompetent and inefficient tosspot" and was signed "With distaste" by Mr Hancock.

The letter was seen by two employees and one of Mr Cray's partners.

Mr Nicklin said that Mr Hancock also sent a fax that month saying that Mr Cray was "thick as well as greedy" and alleging that he had "ripped of" (sic) his wife.

Mr Hancock denies publication to anyone other than Mr Cray and pleads justification, saying that the contents were true. Mr Nicklin said that Mr Hancock had continued to send "menacing" letters and messages to Mr Cray, which amounted to harassment.

Mr Hancock, of Rigden Road, Hove, denied that he was responsible for the alleged acts.

Mr Cray, who said he believed he had a good reputation within the town and his profession, told the judge that he was extremely embarrassed that colleagues had seen such material.

He referred to a cartoon which showed his gravestone with a man urinating against it and passing wind.

"I got a call from a senior partner of a London firm of solicitors who told me that his stepson had found the cartoon on the internet.

"When I went around for dinner they had it pinned up on the noticeboard. They made light of it but it was probably the most embarrassing occasion in my professional life - nothing comes close to that.

"And it's right that I haven't had work from them since."

The hearing was adjourned.