against him he accepted, I think, that Bane’s distrust of the firm and eventual decision to dispense with its services had a much deeper and irrational foundation. 149. In his witness statement Mr Hughes described Bane as “eccentric”, and recalled that he had very strong political views, which he expressed forcefully. He was a staunch supporter of Mrs Thatcher and the Conservative Party. Mr Hughes did not share his political views, and for that reason tried to avoid having political conversations with him. He says that the instructions which Bane gave to him were always clear and precise, and he has no doubt that the advice which he gave to Bane (usually face to face at meetings) was clearly understood by him. Bane impressed him as having a very quick mind, and as being astute and commercially aware. Like several other witnesses, Mr Hughes was impressed by Bane’s passion for the arts and his wide interests in cultural matters and current affairs. He also recalls that Bane had a very high regard for Ian Airey, his colleague at Oppenheimers, who acted for him in relation to his divorce, and whom Bane regarded as his “guardian angel” in that connection – an accolade which Mr Airey probably found rather less embarrassing than Mr Trower must have found his subsequent identification with Saint Anthony. 150. Mr Hughes made it clear in his oral evidence that he has always been a litigation solicitor, and never advised Bane in relation to either his matrimonial or his testamentary affairs. Nevertheless, in the course of acting for him, and also from discussions with Mr Airey whom he knew very well, Mr Hughes was left in no doubt that Bane intensely disliked both his sister and his wife. Indeed, Mr Hughes said that Bane made it absolutely clear that he loathed them both. The reasons that Bane gave for this antipathy included a belief that they had been involved in the death of his father, a belief that they were in collusion together and stealing from him, a belief that Mirjana had been unfaithful to him, and a belief that they were plotting together and his life was in danger from them. Mr Hughes did not, however, agree with the proposition, confidently put to him in cross-examination, that Bane regarded Zoran as being in his wife’s camp. He said that Bane spoke very little of his son, and when he did so it was in neutral terms, or as he put it in answer to another question “with sadness more than with loathing”. 151. One document upon which Mr Hughes was asked to comment, and which I have not so far mentioned, is a domicile questionnaire which Bane completed and sent to the Inspector of Taxes on 4 February 1988. There were 12 questions on the form, with space left for brief answers which Bane filled in providing additional information on a separate sheet. In answer to question 4 (“If your father is dead, what was his full name and the date and place of his death?”), Bane gave brief details on the questionnaire itself, but also enclosed a photograph of his father’s grave and added the following additional information: “Even today, I can’t get the cause of his death. I suspect, that he was poisoned by Family. Last year I wanted to visit his grave and pay my respect to this great man, but my solicitor … Mr David Hughes, warned me that I could be killed. On my question: did I do anything wrong? he replied No – they have done wrong. No explanation who they are or what they have done wrong. MI5 or MI6 answer …”