[12] I have come to the conclusion that, in giving his evidence, Mr Currie was well aware of the true position and that his evidence was dishonest. I have done so essentially for four reasons. First, the evidence negating reliance was overwhelming (and, I find, was the reason for the plaintiff's abandonment of the claim), was in most cases known to Mr Currie at all material times, and was unable to be explained by him. Self-deception in relation to it, the only feasible alternative to dishonesty, would have required an incredible level of stupidity. Second, if Mr Currie had convinced himself that what he swore in evidence about reliance was true, he must have done so by the time the action was commenced in 1996. However his version was inconsistent with his conduct and documents (including an affidavit) created in the period 1994-6. It is unlikely that he could have been guilty of such self-deception so soon after the events occurred and the documents were written. Moreover, one would not expect to find inconsistencies between his evidence and an answer to interrogatories sworn in 1999 (answer 9(e)); continuous and evolving self-deception is less likely than deceit. Third, the longer Mr Currie gave evidence (which he did for about two and half days), the more satisfied I became that he was dissimulating. Initially, he presented as an elderly, imperfectly educated, somewhat eccentric self-made man, who was willing to guess at answers to questions in an endeavour to help the court. In the end, it all became too much. He was repeatedly unresponsive to questions despite explanations of the need for him to address the subject matter of the inquiry. On several occasions during cross-examination, I thought his prevarication was purposeful. Finally, if (as was submitted on his and the plaintiff's behalf) Mr Currie had only accepted that his recollection of events was mistaken when confronted with his own contemporaneous documents during cross-examination, one would have expected him to have made an affidavit to this effect.[5] There is no suggestion that the plaintiff's legal advisers were incompetent. On the contrary, he was represented by experienced senior counsel. It would be surprising if he had not seen the documents shown to him in cross-examination during preparation for trial. Neither he nor his solicitor has testified about what he was shown. He has not testified that he was unaware of or had forgotten the documents until shown them in his cross-examination. No explanation for this omission has been advanced. The most likely explanation is that Mr Currie was not in a position to depose to those matters truthfully and that he did not wish to be cross-examined about them.