Property tycoon Nicholas Hoogstraten raised eyebrows in the High Court when he told a judge one of his colleagues on the bench was "an idiot" and "a pig".

Mr Justice Lightman, after reading a document submitted by Mr Hoogstraten regarding a massive damages action being brought against him, asked him why he found it necessary to use offensive language about Mr Justice Peter Smith - the judge who had fined him more than £1 million for contempt of court.

The tycoon, recalling that the Court of Appeal had overturned that fine and a series of other orders made against him by Mr Justice Smith, replied: "The judge is a total idiot.

"I dealt with him face-to-face over several weeks and he is an idiot."

Mr Justice Lightman: "Do you have to use offensive words like idiot ?"

Mr Hoogstraten replied: "I don't regard it as offensive. It is factual. The man is a total idiot. He's a pig as well."

The judge warned him: "Gratuitous abuse of the judiciary or anyone else in the course of these proceedings is unacceptable and invites sanctions. Such behaviour does not assist your case."

The hearing in London yesterday was a "case management conference" in preparation for the trial of an action brought against Mr Hoogstraten by the family of a man he was convicted, and then cleared, of killing.

Mohammed Raja, a former business associate, was shot dead at his home in Surrey by two men alleged to be Mr Hoogstraten's henchmen. They are serving life for murder.

The tycoon, 59, was sentenced to ten years at the Old Bailey in 2002 for manslaughter but his conviction was later quashed on appeal.

In the meantime, Mr Justice Smith had given victory to the Raja family by striking out Mr Hoogstraten's defence to their initial £5 million claim and had made orders freezing his assets and fining him more than £1 million for failing to disclose how much he was worth.

But those orders were overturned by the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal and the case was sent back to the High Court for a full hearing, with Mr Hoogstraten's defence and counterclaim for damages reinstated.

The action, together with others launched by individual members of the Raja family, is expected to begin in November.

The basic issue will be whether Mr Hoogstraten was responsible for the killing of Mr Raja.

Mr Hoogstraten complained to the judge that, despite the appeal court decision setting aside the orders made against him, about £120 million of his and his family's assets remained frozen.

This meant he was unable to obtain funds to instruct defence lawyers.

The judge assured him he could apply for discharge of the freezing order so funds could be released, although he might be required to disclose details of his assets.

Mr Hoogstraten had sacked his last set of counsel and solicitors and represented himself at the hearing, in which he challenged procedural arrangements made at a previous hearing when he was legally represented.

The judge rejected his challenge as "a complete waste of resources".