Two appeals launched by the legal firm representing former players in rugby league and rugby union have been denied in a significant blow to the ongoing legal action about brain damage caused by the sport. It means that after five years of legal arguments a large number of the claimants in both codes face the risk of having their cases struck out before they come to trial.
The appeal judge, Lord Justice Dias, ruled that the judge presiding over the management of the case, Senior Master Jeremy Cook, had been right to find that the claimants firm, Rylands Garth, had failed to fulfil its obligations to disclose necessary medical material to the defendants, World Rugby, the Wales Rugby Union, and the Rugby Football Union in one case, and the Rugby Football League in the other.
Advertisement
Related: Five years on: rugby’s brain damaged players wait and wait for the help they need
The issues are procedural, and appeal ruling does not reflect the strength of the actual cases that will eventually proceed to trial, but the case in rugby league in particular has been hugely undermined by this judgment. Altogether 180 of the 321 claimants in rugby league now face having their claims struck off. The number involved in rugby union is smaller, and so is the risk of strike outs, but around 20% of the total number of the 773 union players could be affected.
Rylands Garth had been ordered to comply with their disclosure obligations by late October 2025, or using what is known as an unless order. That date passed without their having done it, and Rylands Garth launched an appeal. They argued that Senior Master Cook had “erred in law and misdirected himself” and that the unless orders had been “disproportionate and oppressive, irrational and perverse.” Dias rejected the appeals on all grounds.
Advertisement
Dias criticised Rylands Garth solicitor Richard Boardman, ruling that given “the repeated extensions, the strong indications by the judge from early in proceedings of the need for active progression of the litigation, the gross misunderstandings of Mr Boardman about his disclosure duties and the associated puzzling nature of these fundamental misconceptions with his unconvincing explanations, it was entirely reasonable in my judgment for the judge to lack confidence in the adequacy or legal accuracy of the approach to disclosure.”
Rylands Garth had provided medical material which was in their possession and that they had relied upon, but had failed to provide a quantity of other medical information that had been requested by the defendants, including GP records and medical histories. Rylands Garth argued that the size of the task made this an impossible job. Dias pointed out that “if solicitors take on substantial litigation such as this, they are duty-bound professionally, both to their lay clients and to the court in their capacity of officers of it, to ensure they have made appropriate and effective logistical and administrative arrangements to comply with the lawful orders of the court.”
A spokesperson for Rylands Garth said: “We are grateful to the judge for providing greater clarity regarding the required level of disclosure of claimants’ medical records. We will continue to comply with the court’s orders as we work to fast-track the case and deliver justice for the former players we represent. 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.
Advertisement
“The former players we represent and their families continue to suffer every day with the devastating impact of the negligence of sports authorities,” the spokesperson continued. “We reaffirm our commitment to accountability, meaningful change, and safeguarding the next generation of players.”
The next case hearings are scheduled for March, but it is likely the defendants will now move to have all the affected cases struck off, which may cause more delays to the proceedings.
In a joint statement following 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.”
Article courtesy of
Source link
