A solicitor is suing for libel after he was branded "a greedy and incompetent tosspot".

Martin Cray, founding partner of Martin Cray and Co, of Edward Street, Brighton, is claiming thousands of pounds in damages from printer Anthony Hancock and his wife Corrine.

The couple sent several insulting messages by fax following a row over how much the solicitor charged for representing them in court.

In a writ issued to the High Court, Mr Cray is claiming "unquantifiable damages" and an injunction restraining the Hancocks from harassing him.

The argument broke out after the couple, of Ridgen Road, Hove, decided to sue Hammonds bathroom fitters, accusing the firm of incompetently fitting a bathroom in their home and took the case to Mr Cray's firm.

Crays were instructed to seek damages for breach of contract against Hammonds.

However, the firm stopped acting for the Hancocks in April this year after a row broke out between the firm and its clients.

Mr Cray's writ claims he then received letters in July, accusing him of ripping them off.

It contains copies of three faxes written by Mr Hancock, who owns The Print Factory in the Bellbrook Industrial Estate, Uckfield.

In the first he wrote: "Dear Cray, your turn next for an expos, you greedy incompetent and inefficient tosspot."

In another he wrote: "Cray, you are thick as well as greedy. Any attempt to injunct me will be given full publicity alerting the City to a potential nasty smell.

"This will cost you a lot more in lost business than the money you ripped off my wife.

"Return the money now and you will hear no more of this matter.

"If deemed necessary, I will be keeping Private Eye, Watchdog and other organisations dealing with rogue traders up to date."

Mr Cray's writ says the words suggested he had ripped off the Hancocks by fraudulently overcharging them for work he had not done.

It says he suffered considerable damage to his reputation and the letters caused "substantial distress and embarrassment".

In January, a judge at Brighton County Court ordered the bathroom work to be redone under supervision of an expert representing the Hancocks and one representing Hammonds.

He also awarded the Hancocks £7,500 costs.