More than 500 former rugby union and league players are fighting a bid by the sports’ governing bodies to have their High Court claims over brain injuries struck out due to repeated failures to disclose medical evidence.
Legal action is being brought by more than 1,100 ex-amateur and professional players against World Rugby, Welsh Rugby Union, the Rugby Football Union (RFU), the Rugby Football League and the British Amateur Rugby League Association.
The former players claim they have been left with serious neurological conditions, depression and anxiety as a result of repeated concussive and sub-concussive blows.
Their lawyers allege the governing bodies breached their duty of care, but World Rugby has argued in its defence that it had no such duty and that injuries are an “inherent risk” in the sport. All the organisations are rigorously defending the claims.
Lawyers for the governing bodies argued at a hearing in London on Wednesday that around 380 claims in rugby union and a further 132 in league should be thrown out, saying there have been repeated failures by their legal representatives to comply with court orders over disclosure of key medical evidence.
But lawyers representing the former players told the court the case is of “significant public interest and societal importance for the continuance of contact/collision sports in the UK” and argue the claims should be allowed to proceed.
Susan Rodway KC, for the claimants, said in written arguments: “All defendants appear to have lost sight of the reality of their actions. The claimants have suffered brain damage. Their symptoms include considerable anxiety and many have committed suicide.
“The defendants’ actions in bringing these strike out claims and taking steps to issue a press release about the same, flies in the face of their protestations of placing the welfare of the players at the forefront.”
She added: “It would be highly undesirable for a significant number of the former players to lose their claims on procedural grounds, particularly where any irregularity has been cured and the claimants and their representatives have made clear their intention to work co-operatively with the defendants and learn from any past errors.”
Ms Rodway also told the court that solicitor Richard Boardman of Rylands Garth law firm has stated his intention to step down from representing the claimants and that lawyers from Leigh Day, who are consulting on the case already, are “engaging in a period of due diligence” to decide whether they can take over the claims.
In a letter to the court, Mr Boardman, who has been representing the claimants since the legal action was launched in 2020, said: “I will ensure that there is an orderly handover – to ensure that the court can have confidence that this litigation will be conducted as it would expect going forward.”
Ms Rodway said the change of representation demonstrates how seriously the claimants take the criticisms levelled at them, and that there will need to be a “period of transition” to any new firm of solicitors. She also said none of the breaches of court orders have been down to the claimants.
However lawyers representing the defendant governing bodies argued that, while striking out a claim is a “measure of last resort”, it is nearly two years since the original disclosure order was made and there is no other “reasonable or proportionate” remedy.
In written arguments, they added: “The Court is presented with widespread and repetitive failures to comply with court orders and the claimants’ legal representatives have been given huge latitude to date.
Neil Block KC, for the RFU, told the court: “These are important documents … an order was made that we were entitled to have them and we have tried in every way.” He added: “A point has been reached where enough is enough.”
The hearing, before Senior Master Cook, is due to continue on Thursday and he is expected to give his decision on the strike out application at a later date.