IT WAS on the 22nd day of the hearing that both legal sides and the media realised Mr Justice French might be having problems. He had conducted an orderly court until it was time for his star turn - the summing-up. And then confusion appeared to strike.
A day into "this mammoth task", he turned to both barristers and appealed for help: "I am sure it is my fault. This is getting a bit involved, so you had better spell it out for me."
Despite days of legal argument and countless extracts from evidence, he repeatedly asked for clarification over the reasons why Mr Dick Spring and the Labour Party pulled out of the coalition.
"First of all, where do we find set out Spring's stated reasons, and secondly, are the parties in agreement as to what those stated reasons were?" he said politely.
Both Lord Williams, representing Mr Reynolds, and Mr James Price QC, representing the Sunday Times, looked aghast. Jumping to their feet, they pointed out that there was "substantial disagreement" between them on this issue and the matter had been "extensively argued before your Lordship" a week ago.
Nodding in agreement, Mr Justice French then asked: "So it is me to make a ruling as to what Mr Spring's stated reasons were?"
Mr Price stood immediately and protested: "My Lord, no. That is an issue of fact and it is for the jury to decide."
Mr Justice French admitted:
"Then it seems to me that I must do some homework which hitherto I had not done in an effort to achieve as simple an answer as one can."
Mr Spring's note, outlining the Labour Party's belief that Mr Reynolds had misled it and that their new deal was based on a lie, also appeared to add to the confusion.
"The trouble is there are so many small documents. I do not blame anybody but there are so many small documents it is rather difficult to organise," said Mr Justice French, as he tried to find it.
After the judge read the whole note to the jury, Lord Williams pointed out, during another adjournment: "My Lord, there is no evidence that it was read out in its entirety to Mr Reynolds, about half was the evidence."
To which, Mr Justice French asked: "No evidence as to which half."
Not surprisingly this answer provoked suppressed laughter in the press box and prompted one woman to leave the court giggling.
Fortunately, Lord Williams managed to retain his composure. "I think the logical implication is it must have been the first half," he replied.
At the end of the second day of his summing up, Mr Justice French politely asked both sides if there were any "matters of error or omission" they wanted corrected.
Not surprisingly, particularly as one of the solicitors counted 12 purported mistakes during the first day of his summing-up, both barristers immediately stood-up.
After Mr Justice French noted Mr Price's list of complaints, Lord Williams intervened, accusing the Sunday Times camp of trying to sway the summing-up.
"I think I ought to make a general observation before I go further that the submissions which have been made to the court ... are in fact an attempted reply to my final speech to the jury.
"That being so there is a serious danger that the scheme of your lordship's summing-up is going to become distorted, one-sided and unfair," he said.
Finally the judge was able to conclude his very detailed summing-up on Thursday, nearly a week after he had begun. Turning to the libellous Sunday Times article, he told the jury: "This was a feature piece, though, not a matter of an opinion piece, though to be honest I don't understand the difference between a feature piece and an opinion piece or any other kind of piece. I don't know if it matters if you understand it or not."
And on that note, the jury was sent out to consider its verdict.