Rugby players lose challenge to court order in brain injury claim

LONDON – Hundreds of former rugby players who allege they suffered brain injuries during their careers have lost a bid to challenge orders that could lead to their High Court claims being thrown out.

A mix of pro and amateur players claim that World Rugby, the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU), England’s Rugby Football Union (RFU), the Rugby Football League and the British Amateur Rugby League Association breached a duty of care to protect them from injury.

Lawyers for the players say they have suffered a range of neurological conditions such as early onset dementia, Parkinson’s, epilepsy and motor neurone disease because of repeated blows.

They argue that the governing bodies had the knowledge and resources to understand the likelihood of brain damage, but did not take steps against this or inform the players. Each of the governing bodies denies wrongdoing and is defending the legal claims.

At a hearing in November, the lawyers brought appeals over case management court orders, including over the provision of medical records. These orders, if not followed, could lead to the cases being thrown out.

In written submissions for the hearing, lawyer Susan Rodway challenged the orders, describing one as “disproportionate and oppressive, irrational and perverse”.

But in a judgment on Dec 22, Justice Dexter Dias dismissed the appeals, saying orders issued in February 2024 and July 2025 requiring the claimants to hand over their medical records and all documents from neurological testing were proportionate and necessary to manage the litigation.

He said in his 71-page ruling that it was “well within the generous margin of his discretion” for a previous judge to make the orders, adding: “I cannot accept that the judge’s decision was unreasonable or perverse, or suffered from any of the further condemnatory adjectives the claimants have deployed at various points.”

Rodway previously said that obtaining all the medical records for the hundreds of players is “akin to the folklore ‘wicked stepmothers’ who compel the princess to mow vast meadows using only nail scissors”.

However, Justice Dias said in his ruling that this “both misunderstands and exaggerates the task”.

He continued: “Where medical evidence is unavailable or no longer in existence, the affidavit can simply explain that.

“If an extension of time is required in respect of the medical records of an individual claimant due to difficulties beyond the claimants’ control, that can be justified and applied for.”

Law firm Rylands Garth, representing the ex-players, said in a statement to AFP that it was grateful to the judge for providing “greater clarity regarding the required level of disclosure of claimants’ medical records”.

“To date, we have already disclosed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents in support of the case against World Rugby, the RFU and WRU, as well as the rugby league defendants.

“Many of these documents were disclosed several years ago. The defendants have never formally responded to the claims and continue to attempt to hold up the case’s progress through the court.”

In a joint statement after the ruling, World Rugby, the RFU and the WRU said: “We note that the claimants’ appeal has been dismissed.

“The judgment expressed concern that there has been a serious erosion of the court’s confidence in the way the disclosure process has been conducted, and noted that effective and fair disclosure of the relevant documents was ‘indispensable’ in the context of the case.

“As such many players in the case are at risk of having their claims struck out.

“Player welfare remains a central priority for rugby and we shall not stand still in this space.”
AFP, REUTERS