least $5,000, and other direct expenses were incurred). The pleading and the letter before action are dealing with different periods. If this allegation was to be made good as an indication that the Claimant’s case is not credible or honest, then it is not enough to make the assertion without doing the sums and the currency computation. In any case I find that it is improbable that there is any significant discrepancy and therefore that this allegation is not proved. iii) Mr. Darton said that the statement of $50,000 in the letter before action was a deliberate untruth by the Claimant. He relied on an email from Mr. Chudson dated 16th February 2015 in which he said that he had never been paid a penny for his work. The documents produced by the Claimant clearly show that this is not correct and I think it is another example of Mr. Chudson’s emotional and colourful way of dealing with matters which he is not happy with. The documents show that he had been paid, but the final bill had not been agreed with the Claimant. 110. The Claimant was cross-examined at length about his integrity. For example, in relation to his communications with the Falk heirs it was suggested that there was a conflict of interest. This might have been the case if he had been acting as attorney for either but I have already found that this was not the case and wasn’t pleaded. He was also asked about his original pleading, in which he had claimed for sums incurred as attorney. This was a misconceived case in law which he subsequently abandoned when the pleadings were amended, but does not, in my judgment, show that he is lying or that he is presenting a false case. 111. The Defendants, through their counsel, alleged in cross-examination and in final submissions that the Claimant had colluded with Mr. Chudson in putting forward an inflated bill for Mr. Chudson’s work. It was put to the Claimant that it was more than a coincidence that, having deleted his claim to his fees as attorney, he simply agreed with Mr. Chudson to add them onto the latter’s bill. This wasn’t pleaded, but in any case there is no basis for the allegation. The final account was not arrived at until after the commencement of these proceedings, and the Claimant did not contend that it had. The Defendants’ case falls a long way short of establishing the serious allegation of collusion and has no evidential basis, nor was it pleaded. 112. The Claimant’s evidence was that he had always agreed with Mr. Chudson that he would not pay him in full until the end of his work under the Contract. There is nothing to contradict this. He said that he paid him quarterly, and was asked about an email from Mr. Chudson dated 1st January 2016 in which he said that he had not sent invoices for October, November and December 2015. The Claimant agreed that he hadn’t but said that this was because Mr. Chudson had stopped doing any work when the Defendants emailed him on 17th November 2015 refusing to pay. The Claimant’s explanation that Mr. Chudson wanted his view whether to charge up to the point in November 2015, is borne out by the email and makes sense. 113. The Claimant was also challenged about item 11 in Mr. Chudson’s email of 11 th August 2016, but Mr. Chudson goes on to say that this sum (relating to work done to enforce the agreement and therefore recoverable under Clause 9) has been excluded in computing the sum due under the Contract for work done on the Posener claims. The other items challenged were item 2, which was for research carried out between 30 th April and 8th October 2014 and item 9 for the period 4 th January 2016 and 7th April