A JUDGE spoke out at the last minute about investigative work that was carried out in a damages claim – four and a half years after it had happened.

Mr Justice Marshall made his comments when he rejected the claim of a Southampton milkwoman injured by an electricallydriven float.

Patricia Case had suffered serious injuries and it was “with no great pleasure”

that her claim fell.

Mrs Case, of English Road, Shirley, had sued the Southampton Co-operative Society for personal injuries.

“She is a lady of obvious respectability and I want to say quite categorically that my decision is not based on the belief she has deliberately given an account of the accident which she knows is untrue,” he said.

The judge heard that Mrs Case had complained about the condition of the float and the following morning, when she pushed the handle, the vehicle at first moved backwards, then jumped forwards, trapping her between the front of the vehicle and the loading bay.

However, the judge accepted evidence that the float had been examined the morning she was due to take it out and found to be in a normal condition.

On the balance of probabilities, he decided the plaintiff had not made out her case and gave judgment to the company, but with no order for costs.

“This is another case which provides an example of the dilemma facing courts, when an investigation of minute details had to be carried out at a distance from the actual events – in this case something like four and a half years.

“The accident happened on February 11, 1961, and the writ was not issued until the day before the expiration of the period of three years, which limits the issue of writs in respect of accidents.”