A High Court judge today said “blunt and straightforward” cricket star Geoffrey Boycott gave evidence which was “not always as impressive” as it could have been when appearing in a civil trial in London.

Mr Justice Vos said the former Yorkshire and England batsman had been “keen to give evidence to help his case” and gave “three completely different” answers to a question.

The judge made his comments as he blocked an attempt by Mr Boycott to sue solicitors who had given advice on a Poole property purchase.

He said 70-year-old Mr Boycott, who lives in Jersey, had been too slow to take legal action against Perrins Guy Williams, a firm based in Poole, and dismissed a claim for damages.

“Mr Boycott is by his own admission a blunt and straightforward man,” said the judge.

“His evidence was clear but not always as impressive as it would have been if he had not tried to anticipate the reasons why counsel was asking questions.”

The judge added: “(He gave) three completely different answers to the same question.”

Mr Justice Vos said he did not think “the famous cricketer, cricket correspondent,” was “confused” and added: “The evidence demonstrates Mr Boycott was keen to give evidence to help his case. Otherwise, I found Mr Boycott a reasonably reliable witness. He was plainly annoyed by what had happened.”

The court heard that Mr Boycott bought a house in Sandbanks, Poole, with former partner Anne Wyatt for £450,000 in 1996.

He claimed that as a result of Perrins Guy Williams’ “professional negligence” he got “less from the deal than he expected”.

The judge heard that Mr Boycott and Mrs Wyatt, who was 14 years older, bought the house on a “joint tenancy”.

Mr Boycott had expected to “get the whole property” after Mrs Wyatt’s death in 2009, the court heard.

But Mrs Wyatt had “severed” the joint tenancy after being diagnosed with lung cancer in 2007 and half the property became part of her estate when she died.

Mr Boycott claimed that Perrins Guy Williams had failed to take “proper instructions” from him when the deal was being struck and failed to advise him that the tenancy could be “unilaterally severed”.

But the judge concluded that Mr Boycott had been too slow off the mark when launching legal action.

He had had three years to take legal action, the court was told.

Mr Justice Vos concluded that Mr Boycott knew there was a problem by July 2007 – when Mrs Wyatt severed the tenancy – and should have launched proceedings by July 2010.

But, the judge said, action had not been started until August 2010.

The judge said Mr Boycott’s claim for damages was therefore “statute barred” and had to be dismissed.

Mr Boycott’s lawyers suggested that they would try to appeal.