LAWYERS for both sides in the confidentiality lawsuit launched by David and Victoria Beckham over the contents of a book based on revelations by Bolton minder Mark Niblett were locked in behind-the-scenes negotiations at the High Court in a bid to clear it for publication.

A judge heard that the Beckhams had now seen a final 60,000-word manuscript of "Posh and Becks" written by biographer Andrew Morton and were objecting to about 2,500 words.

Mr Niblett, aged 35, was bodyguard to the Spice Girls singer and Manchester United soccer star at their Cheshire home.

It was hoped that talks would result in areas of disagreement being "narrowed if not resolved entirely," said Geoffrey Robertson QC, for Mr Morton and publisher Michael O'Mara Books.

Meanwhile, Mr Justice Evans-Lombe retired to his private room to read the evidence and documents in the case -- and selected sections of the book.

If agreement is not reached by this afternoon, the judge will site in private to hear the couple's plea for court orders banning publication of material which they say was revealed to Mr Morton by their former bodyguard, Mark Niblett, in breach of a confidentiality clause in his employment contract.

The judge was told that Mr Niblett, 40, who parted company with the England soccer star and Posh Spice in May and has been barred from disclosing any further details about the couple and their baby son, Brooklyn, was not involved in the negotiations because his role in the preparation of the book was now over.

Apart from the issue of confidentiality, the case is seen as a race for publication in time for the Christmas market between the Morton book and Beckham's own book, My World, to be published by Hodder Headline next month.

Michael Tugendhat QC, for the Beckhams, said it was clear from disclosures made by Mr Morton that Mr Niblett "acted or attempted to act in disregard of his plain and obvious duties of confidentiality by offering a very large amount of material to Mr Morton, most of which he did not use".

Mr Morton argued that the material he did use was either not confidential or was already in the public domain. This was disputed by the Beckhams, who wanted further deletions in addition to those already negotiated.

"We say this is a very bad case of disloyalty and breach of confidentiality on the part of a former employee, very bad indeed, and not very much better on the part of the author and publisher," said Mr Tugendhat.

Mr Robertson referred the judge to passages in Mr Morton's written evidence in which he spoke of the public interest in what he had written and pointed to the "self-generated publicity" that the Beckhams had promoted about themselves.

Urging Mr Justice Evans-Lombe to read as much of the book as possible so as to understand its developing 'theme', Mr Robertson said: "You can't judge a book by its cover or by bits and pieces of it."

He said: "The argument for publication is the public interest argument, namely that the public are entitled to know the truth."

Mr Robertson added that part of the defence case was based on the freedom of speech provisions of the new Human Rights Act, due to come into force in October.