Hundreds of former rugby players pursuing legal action over alleged brain injuries have suffered a significant setback.
The case involves a mix of professional and amateur players who allege they sustained long-term neurological damage during their careers. The claims are directed at World Rugby, the Welsh Rugby Union, England’s Rugby Football Union, the Rugby Football League and the British Amateur Rugby League Association.
The players argue the governing bodies breached their duty of care by failing to protect them from repeated head impacts. They claim they are now living with conditions including early-onset dementia, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy and motor neurone disease.
All of the governing bodies deny wrongdoing and are defending the claims.
MORE: Ex-internationals take World Rugby to court over head injuries
At a hearing last month, lawyers acting for the players appealed against case management orders relating to the disclosure of medical records. Failure to comply with those orders could result in claims being dismissed.
In written submissions, lawyer Susan Rodway described one of the orders as “disproportionate and oppressive, irrational and perverse”, arguing that obtaining full medical records for hundreds of claimants was an unreasonable burden.
However, in a 71-page judgment delivered on Monday, Justice Dexter Dias rejected the appeals.
He ruled that it was “well within the generous margin of discretion” for the previous judge to make the orders, adding that he could not accept that the decision was unreasonable or perverse.
Justice Dias also expressed concern about the handling of the disclosure process, saying there had been “a serious erosion of the confidence the court could safely place” in how it had been conducted.
Addressing claims that the disclosure process was unworkable, the judge said the task had been exaggerated, noting that where medical evidence no longer exists, affidavits can simply explain that. He added that extensions could be requested where difficulties are beyond a claimant’s control.
Law firm Rylands Garth, which represents the former players, said it welcomed the judge’s clarification on disclosure requirements, stating it had already provided hundreds of thousands of pages of documents.
In a joint statement, World Rugby, the RFU and WRU said the dismissal of the appeal meant many claims were now at risk of being struck out, while reiterating that player welfare remains a central priority.
– AFP
Photo: Piaras Ó Mídheach/Sportsfile via Getty Images
