More than 500 former rugby players can pursue brain injury claims against the sport’s governing bodies following a High Court ruling.
The former rugby union and league players allege the governing bodies breached their duty of care by failing to protect them from injuries linked to repeated blows and concussions during their careers.
Their lawyers allege the players suffered neurological injuries including early-onset dementia, Parkinson’s, epilepsy and motor neurone disease because of repeated blows and concussions suffered on the pitch.
The High Court in London ruled on Friday that the claims could continue to trial, subject to missing documents being produced.
World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union, along with the Rugby Football League and the British Amateur Rugby League Association, had argued that the case should be dismissed.
The governing bodies said the claimants’ previous lawyers repeatedly failed to provide records and disclose key medical evidence.
They deny wrongdoing and are defending the claims.
Judge Jeremy Cook said in a written ruling that the cases could continue subject to the production of the missing documents, adding that the “individual claimants are blameless”.
He decided “with some hesitation” that the case should proceed to trial, subject to “conditions” to be decided at a further hearing.
“This litigation has the potential to greatly impact the way in which one of our national sports is conducted at amateur and professional levels,” he said.
“I of course recognise the countervailing public interest that litigation should be conducted efficiently.”
The ruling allows more than 500 former professional and amateur rugby union and rugby league players to pursue their claims in court.
Lawyers representing the players argued that they had provided the vast majority of the required documents and highlighted the wider importance of the litigation for contact sports in the UK.
They also argued that the governing bodies had the knowledge and resources to understand the likelihood of brain damage but did not take steps to address the risk or inform players.
Judge Cook said the players now had new lawyers. He said that if they had remained represented by their previous legal team, he “could not have had any confidence that future court orders would be complied with timeously or at all”.
He said the breaches of court orders were not caused by the players themselves.
“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,” he said.
In 2024 and July last year, the court issued orders requiring the claimants to release documents relating to their health conditions.
The players subsequently lost an appeal against the court order.
The governing bodies relied on the omissions in arguing that the case should be dismissed.
William Audland KC, representing the rugby league bodies, said in written submissions that the non-compliance was “systemic and without good reason”.
Susan Rodway KC, representing the players, told the court the breaches were “neither serious nor significant” given the “context of this complex and documentarily voluminous litigation”.
