Rosenblatt Supreme Court rejects damages bid in Atomic Veterans case By Margaret Taylor 14 March 2012 15:01 17 December 2015 13:31 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer martin shergold 15 March 2012 at 12:39 i am severely dissappointed in the judges of the supreme court. maybe u should look at my fathers file. I had a father that was exposed to S I X atomic bombs at MOnte Bello and Maralinga. When u see the medical letters you judges best run and hide cos God is now going to curse you to the same death my father had. Time barred is that your excuse? Give me a break. Corrupt Government will never succeed. Shergold Australia. Reply Link Anonymous 15 March 2012 at 13:02 Limitation serves a useful purpose, but I cannot help but feel that in this instance justice has not been served. Reply Link Anonymous 10 July 2012 at 00:20 It is quite shameful for the Supreme Court to mention throwing out the case of these humble, honest human veterans who dedicated their young and healthy life in carrying out these atomic nuclear dumping all in the name of Britian. I really sympathise with them, let alone the birds, fish, grass, sea, soil, rocks, stones, sand and the trees. Who knows what great damages this has done to the environment in the Pacific. If your reason was time barred, so for what reason could be given when the illness of this atomic dumping is affecting the children of the veterans right now and so their grandchildren and great-grandchildren and so forth. I hope that God will forgive you for throwing out this case and unfortunately God sees everything we do and we cannot hide from him. I for one believe, that your money will not be able to pay for the damages that has already been done to these veterans, even if the case was won, even all that money will not be able to cover for the lives of these veterans and their families. Quite a shame though. Reply Link james mccrorie 30 November 2012 at 14:51 thetruthhasbeenignorediwastheir Reply Link God christ jesus 8 December 2012 at 22:31 I am British army received nothing atomic veterans radiation exposure veterans compensation act, british military sexual trauma personal very serious injury, in additional compensation Reply Link Colonel Saunders 30 January 2013 at 15:38 Personally, I am just so glad to see that justice has prevailed in this case. Why is everybody so anti-MOD? the law is the law is the law. Surely the vets should have devoted their energies to amending the Statute of Limitations, if they felt it necessary, rather than on what has proved to be fruitless litigation. Which law firm told them they had a case in the first place? Reply Link Leslie Charles Guest 4 May 2014 at 22:23 I want told that my father was affected by the bomb tests being a serving Sailor in the Royal Navy. My father died over 40 years ago, our family suffered birth defects and my Father died of cancer at 49. We as a family were deprived of someone who in my opinion was a great man who never really achieved his true potential nor did we as a family enjoy the privilege of his counsel and encouragement. Would those sitting in judgement feel the same were they in our shoes? I was treated by one of the doctors advising the MOD on nuclear effects. If those people needed assistance would it have been provided. We were unaware of our fathers involvement until long after his death. When would the statue of limitations run out on murder? It doesn’t and as our Father was in a way derived of life shouldn’t the same apply? I am questioning myself as to why I am even writing this and to what end. Perhaps the law can be changed and children who are not in a position to represent themselves or even know what they need to represent themselves for are protected. My father, from when I was 4 years of age until his death had sole custody of myself my sister snd my two older brothers. Me bring the youngest. Who will protect others like us, like we were? We look to the government to represent us against injustice not to perpetrate and even promote it. It is the Royal Navy would Her Majesty allow this to happen we’re she aware and is there a moral case to answer by those in charge of such matters and justice to be seen to be served? Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.