Mr Levi, 65, is suing Mr Bates, 77, for libel damages over three articles written by Mr Bates in the club's match-day programme in 2006 and 2007, and a letter sent to fans in 2007.

The court has heard the articles variously accused Mr Levi of being a shyster, an "enemy within", attempting to blackmail the club and scaring off potential investors.

The dispute arose after Mr Bates, 77, took over the club in 2005 from the Yorkshire Consortium Trust, of which Mr Levi was a member.

Mr Bates says that Mr Levi blocked the sale of the remaining shares in the club in 2005 when he had no reason for doing so.

Mr Levi says he was never acting in a personal capacity – but rather for a company he was involved with called Cope Industrial Holdings - and there was a "genuine" legal dispute over whether or not a "call option" on the shares had lapsed.

Mr Levi's stance was today supported by Gerald Krasner, the club's former chairman.

Mr Krasner is Mr Levi's accountant, and was part of the Yorkshire Consortium who took over the club in 2003.

It is Mr Bates' case that Mr Levi should have accepted the advice of an experienced commercial QC, Michael Crystal, who told him that the "call option" had not lapsed.

Mr Levi had earlier spoken to Mr Crystal's brother, Jonathan Crystal, a junior - but still very experienced - barrister who had come to the conclusion that the call option was no longer enforceable.

Mr Krasner told the judge that he thought Mr Levi's argument that the call option had lapsed - and adopting such a stance during negotiations with Mr Bates - was a "legitimate business tactic".

He added that he had tried to persuade Mr Bates to settle his differences with Mr Levi in early September 2005, but although he "was not rude", Mr Bates "seemed clear he had no desire to resolve the dispute".

"While understandably keen to protect his interest, Mr Levi did not take a confrontational or difficult attitude to Mr Bates," said Mr Krasner.

"If anything, it was the other way round, as evidenced by my discussion with Mr Bates in September 2005 when he made it quite clear that he was not prepared to meet Mr Levi with a view to resolving matters."

Eventually, the board of Leeds United Athletic Football Club issued new shares in the club, greatly diluting the importance of the "call option".

From the witness box, Mr Levi has told the judge, Sir Charles Gray, that, because of Mr Bates, both Cope and the Yorkshire Consortium lost seven-figure sums.

"As a result of Mr Bates' actions Cope lost and was never repaid a secured loan worth close to £1.5m," he said. "In addition, the Yorkshire Consortium has lost a £2m unsecured loan made to the club.

"Bearing in mind the breach by the board, led and controlled by Mr Bates, of the share purchase agreement, and the subsequent financial losses suffered by the Yorkshire Consortium and Cope, it still strikes me as extraordinary that Mr Bates should write and publish articles accusing me of dishonourable behaviour," he added.

In his written witness statement, before the court, Mr Levi also revealed that he was considering taking legal action against David Richmond, a fellow member of the Yorkshire Consortium.

Mr Levi claims it is now "clear" that Mr Richmond gave Mr Bates, via a third party, a copy of a note of Michael Crystal QC's legal advice on the "call option".

"It has been confirmed during the disclosure process of these proceedings that it was Mr Richmond who forwarded the note to Mr Bates," said Mr Levi.

"It is likely that I will be seeking leave to rely upon the disclosed documents outside these proceedings and with the other members of the Yorkshire Consortium, will consider proceedings against Mr Richmond.

"Mr Bates went on to make use of the document in a way that potentially caused Cope, myself and my other co-trustees significant financial loss.

"Having regard to their actions in relation to the improperly obtained advice note, it seems ironic that it is Mr Bates who accuses me of acting dishonourably and dishonestly."

Mr Levi, who was banned from Leeds games in 2005 by Mr Bates, has previously said that, by calling him a "shyster" Mr Bates was using anti-Semitic language, although he does not accuse him of being anti-Semetic.

The case, due to last two weeks, continues, with Mr Bates not expected to take the stand until next Tuesday at the earliest.