Rugby Governing Bodies Urge High Court to Dismiss Hundreds of Brain Injury Claims

Lawyers for rugby’s governing bodies are urging the High Court to dismiss hundreds of brain injury claims, citing a persistent failure by former players to disclose essential medical evidence.

Governing Bodies Seek Dismissal of Hundreds of Claims

At a High Court hearing this week, legal representatives for World Rugby, Welsh Rugby and the Rugby Football Union argued that the court should strike out 378 claims involving rugby union and 132 claims against rugby league bodies. The motion follows a years-long struggle over the disclosure of medical documentation, including brain scans and neuropsychological assessments, which players were ordered to provide in 2024.

Michael Kent KC, representing the rugby union governing bodies, told the court that while dismissal is clearly a measure of last resort, the defendants have exhausted all other options. Compliance has still not been achieved, Kent stated in written submissions, adding that there are no remaining procedural levers available to force the claimants to meet their obligations. Meanwhile, William Audland KC, counsel for the rugby league organizations, characterized the ongoing failure to produce the required documents as systemic and without good reason.

Defense Arguments on Procedural Failure

The push for dismissal stems from a series of court orders issued since 2024. During that process, a High Court judge noted a serious erosion of the confidence the court could safely place in the way the disclosure process had been conducted.

Kent emphasized that the governing bodies have provided the claimants’ legal team with huge latitude to date, but argued that the current situation prevents a fair trial. He maintained that no other remedy remains reasonable or proportionate given the pattern of repetitive failures.

Claimants’ Defense and the Future of Legal Representation

Susan Rodway KC, representing the former players, urged the court to reject the dismissal request, labeling it an extreme response. She argued that the procedural breaches were neither serious nor significant when viewed within the context of this complex and documentarily voluminous litigation.

Rodway suggested that the transition to a new legal firm could resolve the impasse, creating a completely different regime going forward in which both the court and the defendants can have full confidence. She emphasized that the individual claimants themselves were not responsible for the delays, stating, None of the breaches have been due to the individual actions of the claimants.

Judicial Scrutiny of the Litigation Process

The hearing also addressed the significant shift in the players’ legal team. Richard Boardman of Rylands Garth, who has led the action since it began in 2020, has signaled his intent to stop acting for the former players. Senior Master Jeremy David Cook expressed clear frustration with the slow pace of the proceedings, questioning how the change in solicitors would impact the case’s momentum.

Rugby Stars Take Legal Action Against Governing Bodies Over Brain Damage

“I have been frustrated from day one at the progress of this litigation. I expect that the pace is picked up.”

Senior Master Jeremy David Cook, High Court Judge

The judge also referred to the litigants as passengers in the lengthy process. The case, which includes high-profile former players such as Steve Thompson, Mark Regan, Phil Vickery, Colin Charvis, Gavin Henson, Ryan Jones, Lee Byrne, and Alix Popham, remains a significant test for the sport. As Rodway noted in her submissions, the case carries substantial weight: This litigation is of significant public interest and societal importance for the continuance of contact/collision sports in the UK.

The hearing is expected to conclude on Thursday.

Keep reading