Former Bermuda Fire director William Cox locked horns with Ian Croxford QC in Supreme Court yesterday, as the lawyer bridled at Mr. Cox's frequent invocations of "your client'' -- namely, local accountants Cooper & Lines, employed by Bermuda Fire at the time of its 1991 restructuring.

During a discussion of a Bermuda Fire finance committee meeting in February, 1991, when the company's management discussed various means of how to handle the runoff from its ailing Weavers of London books, Mr. Cox said this had been one of many instances where he had relied on professionals.

Mr. Croxford responded that both Cooper & Lines and legal advisers Conyers Dill & Pearman were not present at the meeting. Mr. Cox said, "For some reason you're resisting the truth, which was that your clients were also heavily relied upon by us.'' When Mr. Croxford took issue with Mr. Cox's assertion that Cooper & Lines acted as Bermuda Fire's "financial advisers'', the other answered: "I disagree. You're wrong'' and added: "It was a very conspicuous fact that your clients were very heavily involved.'' "You do understand,'' Mr. Croxford said, "I'm putting it to you that your speculation, surmise and assertion is baseless and wrong.'' "I understand,'' Mr. Cox shrugged. "I hope that his Lordship (Puisne Judge Vincent Meerabux) doesn't agree with you.'' However, Mr. Croxford began to uncover apparent disagreements within Mr. Cox's testimony during the afternoon session regarding Bermuda Fire's reports from Tillinghast, Nelson & Warren Ltd., who were frequent consulting actuaries for Bermuda Fire. Yesterday, Mr. Cox asserted that it was not his practice as a director to read Tillinghast's reports.

However, in referring to the Wednesday transcripts, Mr. Croxford said that when he had asked Mr. Cox if he made it his business to look at Tillinghast reports, "Your answer was a simple, clear and emphatic yes.'' "I may or may not have had a look,'' Mr. Cox responded. "When I said yes, what I meant was I was very interested in knowing what the Tillinghast report said . .. that look may have been through the eyes of professionals.'' The court also heard that in 1994 interviews with a representative of liquidators, Mr. Cox had also alluded to having read such reports.

Apprently surprised to see the 1994 transcripts he had certified, Mr. Cox told the court: "I recall being provided with a transcript which was very bulky; I flipped through it and found it extremely boring. It was not an event which made a great impression on me . .. I didn't know I'd been asked to certify this.'' He later added: "I do confess that my memory of what happened then does not conform with what I now remember.'' BUSINESS BUC