Brain injury cases should be thrown out, High Court told
Get the Sports newsletter
Daily sports — scores, transfers, the storylines from the leagues you actually follow. Free.
- World Rugby, the Welsh Rugby Union, the Rugby Football Union, and the Rugby Football League argued that 132 claims against the rugby league bodies and 378 against the rugby union bodies should be dismissed for non-compliance with a 2024 court order on neurological testing documents.
- Michael Kent KC, acting for World Rugby, the WRU and the RFU, said in written submissions that dismissal was a "measure of last resort" but that "compliance has still not been achieved."
- William Audland KC, for the rugby league bodies, said non-compliance with court orders was "systemic and without good reason" and that the claims should be dismissed.
- Susan Rodway KC, for the players, countered that the breaches were "neither serious nor significant" and that throwing out the claims would be an "extreme response" given the case's public interest in the continuance of contact sports in the UK.
- Richard Boardman, who has represented the claimants through Rylands Garth, told the court he intends to stop acting for the former players, prompting the judge to demand the pace of litigation be picked up.
- Senior Master Jeremy David Cook, the presiding judge, expressed frustration at the slow progress of the case and described the litigants as "passengers" in the lengthy process.
- Steve Thompson, Mark Regan, Phil Vickery, Colin Charvis, Gavin Henson, Ryan Jones, Lee Byrne and Alix Popham are among the high-profile former players involved in the action, which began in 2020.
Why it matters: If the court grants the dismissal, 510 former players would lose their claims on procedural grounds rather than having their allegations of a breached duty of care decided on the merits — a result the players' lawyers call "highly undesirable" given the case's implications for the future of contact sport in the UK. The simultaneous departure of the claimants' lead solicitor adds another layer of instability to a lawsuit already frustrated by the judge.
