[32] Mr Hewlett was cross-examined closely on the sequence of events from the time his firm first received instructions from White, through the 'change of plan' in relation to the borrower collecting the mortgage documents from Mr Hewlett's office and subsequent events leading up to the registration of the mortgage. Mr Hewlett's evidence was unsatisfactory in many respects, not least because he had a poor recollection of the precise details of the transaction, and appears not to have kept any diary notes about instructions that were received or attendances on him or his staff members concerning the transaction. The pragmatic reality is that a busy professional will not, and cannot be expected to, remember the minutiae of such details as whether a particular document was sent by email, sent by regular mail, sent by courier, or collected from the solicitor's office. Nor, in the real world, could a solicitor with a busy securities or conveyancing practise be expected to recall, several years after the event, whether particular instructions of an administrative nature were received by the solicitor personally or whether they came through the solicitor's personal assistant or paralegal. Many of the difficulties which Mr Hewlett had in giving his evidence arose from the fact that he simply had no records from which to confirm the sequence of events and communications. The fact that such mundane details as whether documents were sent by email or collected in person from Mr Hewlett's office have assumed such significance in the present case highlights the importance for solicitors to ensure that proper diary notes of attendances on clients and parties to transactions are kept, that proper correspondence logs of communications in and out of the solicitor's office are maintained, that email and other electronic records are properly filed and backed up, and that the integrity of solicitors' files are preserved, even when the contents of the file become important documents in litigation. For example, it was simply not possible for any of the parties before me to identify which of the numerous copies of the 'Mistilis licence' was the one which had been provided to Mr White, and then to Mr Hewlett. There were a number of copies, and copies of copies, with varying degrees of illegibility, but because Mr Hewlett's file had been pulled apart for the purposes of this litigation at the time when his firm was acting in this proceeding for Royalene (that is, until only a number of days before the trial commenced), it was impossible to identify which of many documents were 'originals' and which were copies, or copies of copies. The impact, and persuasiveness, of Mr Hewlett's evidence was certainly greatly diminished by his inability to give accurate evidence about the transactions and communications in which he had acted as solicitor for Royalene.