Britain's atomic test veterans including a Droitwich man today won their High Court bid for the right to sue for compensation.

Around 1,000 servicemen who blame their ill-health on involvement in Britain's 1950s nuclear tests want to sue the Ministry of Defence.

Among them is Barry Hands, aged 71, of Moreland Road, Droitwich, who was diagnosed with malignant melanoma 10 years ago.

He not only witnessed the British nuclear tests between March 1958 and March 1959 but was ordered to visit the sites to retrieve vital scientific equipment.

The veterans, who took part in the programme on the Australian mainland, Monte Bello islands and Christmas Island between 1952 and 1958, say that new scientific evidence has shown links between exposure to ionising radiation and their conditions, which include cancer, skin defects and fertility problems.

Many of them are terminally ill and seven have died since the hearing at London's High Court in January.

The Ministry of Defence, while publicly acknowledging the "debt of gratitude" owed to the men, is fighting the multimillion-pound group action on the preliminary issue that it cannot proceed because it was launched outside the legal time limit.

Its QC, Charles Gibson, said that the law had been misconstrued and that evidence supporting the 10 individual "lead" cases did not come "remotely close" to proving a causal link.

Benjamin Browne QC, for the men, told Mr Justice Foskett that the claims were not time-barred as they could not proceed without the relevant "knowledge" and, in any case, it would be just in the circumstances to allow them to go ahead.

Today the veterans were given the green light by the High Court to proceed with the claims.

In his 217-page judgment, Mr Justice Foskett rejected a submission by the MoD, which denies negligence, that all the cases were "doomed to fail" on the issue of causation, and refused to strike them out.

He said the nature of the injury or disability in question was an issue of fact that only the judge who heard the full trial could determine after hearing all the evidence.

Of the 10 lead cases, he ruled that five of them were not statute-barred under the 1980 Limitation Act by being brought outside the legal time limit and could proceed to trial.

The five which, in his judgment, were statute-barred could also go ahead as he was prepared to exercise his discretion to disapply the time limit.

He said: "All things being equal, a veteran who believes that he has an illness, injury or disability attributable to his presence at the tests whose case is supported by apparently reputable scientific and medical evidence, should be entitled to his 'day in court'".

He added that it would be a "very regrettable consequence" if it was necessary to decide that some cases could go forward to trial and others could not.

The judge recognised that it would be impossible for the MoD to call as witnesses many of those who were responsible for the planning and execution of the tests.

He had heard from its counsel, Charles Gibson QC, that over 90% of the 114 essential witnesses were dead or untraceable.

Of the surviving 11, the four who were willing and able to assist - who had an average age of nearly 84 - could not fairly be expected to recall events with clarity and confidence.

But, bearing in mind that the burden of proof was upon the veterans, the judge rejected Mr Gibson's claim that there was now no reasonable prospect of a fair trial.

"The nuclear tests carried out were of enormous significance to the security of the UK and to the perceived need to arm the country with an independent nuclear capability.

"It would be unthinkable that the tests and all the arrangements surrounding them, both before and after each and indeed more generally, were not documented fully and meticulously: given that the tests did involve experimentation, they are likely to have been as well, if not better, documented than almost any other significant event in UK history".

He added: "In many respects this is a claim against an institution, now identified as 'The Ministry of Defence', and relates to the systems put in place by that institution at the time of the tests to secure the safety of the participants and their protection from the effects of ionising radiation.

"The views and positions of the institution that the defendant now represents will be clear from the voluminous documentation available for consideration and the systems put in place are clearly and fully recorded.

"Indeed the views and positions of many of the significant individuals within that institution will also be clear from the same sources."

Douglas Hern, 73, from Moulton, Lincs, litigation secretary of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, said after the ruling: "It is a major victory, especially over the Government, because their financial resources regarding legal matters are far greater than ours, although we have got the best solicitors in London."

He said the veterans hoped that the Government would "now come to the table" and negotiate, rather than appeal today's ruling.

Mr Hern, who attributes the death of his 13-year-old daughter from cancer to his radiation exposure, said that if the litigation continued without settlement many ex-servicemen would not live to see the eventual outcome.

Some of the veterans "won't be here possibly within two or three months".

Outside court Neil Sampson, senior partner at Rosenblatt solicitors, said: "Speaking on behalf of all the nuclear veterans represented here today, we are delighted with the result - our primary regret is that the process has taken so long.

"We still have a further period of perhaps three years before the case can finally be brought to court for trial and sadly, in that time, many of the veterans we are fighting for will have passed away.

"We hope that the Ministry of Defence will recognise this and agree to settle the claims of the veterans out of court, rewarding them with the compensation they rightly deserve."