Fifty years ago the UK Government began a series of atomic and thermonuclear weapons tests on the Australian mainland, on Christmas Island and elsewhere in the South Pacific. About 25,000 members of the British, Australian and New Zealand Armed Forces, many national servicemen, and some Fijians, took part in the testing programme — either actively or as bystanders.

This week nearly 1,000 veterans took their multimillion-pound compensation claim against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to the High Court. They say they have suffered illnesses — including cancers, skin defects and fertility problems — because of exposure to radiation from the tests.

They claim that they were protected inadequately from the blast: in some tests they were told to muster on the beach, wearing only navy-issue shorts or sandals. Afterwards they swam in the lagoons and cooked fish on the beach. In later tests men were told simply to tuck their trousers into their socks and to cover their eyes to protect them from the flash.

Their lawyers argue that — on the basis of the Government’s own documents — those responsible for the tests did not understand the risks entailed and as a result, the men were poisoned with radiation.

Benjamin Browne, their QC, told the High Court yesterday that in one explosion, the yield of the bomb was probably “70 times higher than the minimum yield anticipated”. In another, scientists responsible were said to be “nonplussed with the amount of radioactivity registered” and were “most apologetic”.

In contrast, he added, to the “bland confidence apparently maintained by the MoD, things did go seriously wrong. One group of men were so badly contaminated by the penetrating radiation that they were found, over days, to produce radioactive urine.”

The MoD is seeking to have their claim struck out, arguing that it is time-barred (launched outside the legal time limit). Browne told Mr Justice Foskett that not only had the Government failed to offer compensation, it also “resists all claims with the utmost determination and all the colossal resources, legal, financial and scientific at its command”.

If the MoD succeeds, the veterans’ claim will never even be considered. So far, MoD costs are likely to have run to several million pounds. If the veterans lose, they would have to pick up a combined bill of £8 million to £10 million.

So how could they ever begin to fight their case? In 2002, when they first sought advice, there was legal aid. Proceedings were issued in December 2004. The Legal Aid Board then decided that the taxpayer could not afford such a claim. Months were spent trying to find another firm to take it on. Through a chance meeting, Ian Rosenblatt, senior partner of the London firm Rosenblatt, heard of the action. His firm was prepared to dig heavily into its own resources to finance the case but needed backing should it fail.

The possibility of a third-party funder was investigated but the funder would have wanted some control over the action and a slice of the damages. In the event, a litigation broker, The Judge, came to the rescue with what was then the largest such insurance package agreed: cover of £5 million (for the MoD costs, expert witness fees and so on) if the case fails. Rosenblatt itself has worked without charge for three years on the case with 25 solicitors at one point, now 17 — raking up millions in costs, probably the largest no win, no fee claim mounted by a British law firm.

The firm acknowledges that the decision was a commercial one, as well as one of principle. They will stand to reap up to double their fees if the case succeeds. But they are also angry at the way that the veterans have been treated and how access to justice now depends on such private sector arrangements. Clive Hyer, the partner leading the case, said that the funding of litigation was down to solicitors being prepared to take the risks involved.

Ian Rosenblatt added: “There’s no escaping that if the insurance had not been available, there would be a denial of access to justice.” He added: “What it boils down to is that the Government has killed legal aid. So without a willing solicitor and willing insurer, people are denied access to justice.”

James Delaney and Matthew Amey, directors of The Judge, say that the package is unprecedented. It benefits claimants additionally in that nothing will come out of the veterans’ damages if they win. To lose would be a “significant blow” to the market in this kind of case. Delaney added: “But we would not have backed the claim if we did not feel the risk assessment was very good and there was a significant access-to-justice issue.”

Yesterday Browne accused the MoD of dragging its feet. Other countries, by contrast, have admitted liability and paid compensation. The longer the case runs, the more veterans will die. A 1999 study for the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association found that 30 per cent had died, mostly in their fifties, from cancers.

Meanwhile, the question, he said, was whether the Government should now be entitled — by raising the time bar issue for the first time — just to “snuff out these claims” before they are even heard.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers