Hundreds of High Court claims brought against rugby’s governing bodies by players alleging they sustained brain injuries during their careers can proceed to trial, a judge has ruled.
World Rugby, Welsh Rugby, the Rugby Football Union, the Rugby Football League, and the British Amateur Rugby League Association told a hearing last month that about 500 claims should be struck out prior to trial because their legal team failed to comply with court orders.
The legal actions form part of a broader group filed by both professional and amateur competitors, who allege that the bodies breached a duty of care to protect them from injury.
Their legal team states they suffered neurological conditions such as motor neurone disease, epilepsy, Parkinson’s, and early-onset dementia due to repeated blows sustained during their playing careers.
They contend that the governing institutions possessed the knowledge and resources to understand the likelihood of brain damage, yet failed to take preventative measures or inform the athletes.
Each governing body denies liability and is defending the actions, but the players’ lawyers told last month’s hearing that striking out the cases before trial would be an “extreme response”.
In a ruling on Friday, Judge David Cook said that although he would have struck out the claims, he determined “with some hesitation” that they should proceed to trial, subject to “conditions” to be decided at a further hearing.
He added that there were “exceptional circumstances” in the case, which possessed a “particular element of public importance going beyond the individual claims”.
He said: “This litigation has the potential to greatly impact the way in which one of our national sports is conducted at amateur and professional levels.”
“I of course recognise the countervailing public interest that litigation should be conducted efficiently.”
He continued: “I recognise the delay and unnecessary expense caused to date, but this delay can be remedied going forward by tight case management and the unnecessary expense can be compensated in costs.”
The judge noted that the players are now represented by a new firm, KP Law, adding that had they remained with their previous lawyers, he “could not have had any confidence that future court orders would be complied with timeously or at all”.
However, he stressed that the breaches were not caused by the players themselves, adding: “Given the vulnerability of many of these claimants, it might be said that they should not be punished for the sins of their legal representative.”
A spokesperson for KP Law welcomed the ruling, stating: “This is a significant step for the many claimants affected by this litigation, who deserve to have their experiences heard and their concerns properly addressed.”
“Our priority is to support our clients with the care and sensitivity these issues demand, and this outcome reinforces our determination to hold the defendants to account.”
In a joint statement, World Rugby, Welsh Rugby and the Rugby Football Union said: “We welcome today’s judgment and the clarity and way forward set out by the master and court today.”
“With new legal representation now in place for the players, we hope that the litigation can move forward in accordance with the court’s expectations and in the best interests of the players and the sport.”
In 2024, lawyers representing the players were directed to disclose medical records and paperwork, including brain scans and neuropsychological assessments, to the governing institutions.
The High Court issued further directions regarding document disclosure in July last year, warning that non-compliance could result in claims being thrown out.
However, representatives for the governing bodies asserted that the 2024 directions had still not been satisfied in multiple cases, meaning about 500 actions across rugby union and rugby league ought to be dismissed before trial.
Submitting written arguments for the rugby league authorities, William Audland KC stated that failure to follow court orders was “systemic and without good reason”.
In contrast, Susan Rodway KC, representing the claimants, informed the court in written submissions that the breaches were “neither serious nor significant” given the “context of this complex and documentarily voluminous litigation”.
She added that the appointment of a new law firm meant there would be a “completely different regime going forward in which both the court and the defendants can have full confidence”.
