Rugby brain injury case able to continue after high court ruling

More than 500 former rugby union and league players’ lawsuits ⁠over neurological injuries can continue, London’s high court ruled on Friday, despite their former lawyers’ failure to disclose ⁠key medical evidence ⁠to governing ​bodies.

World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union, plus the Rugby Football League and the ⁠British Amateur Rugby League Association, argued the claimants’ lawyers had repeatedly failed to provide records.

They asked for a ruling ⁠which would end the cases of more than 500 former professional and ​amateur players over both codes.

But lawyers ‌representing the claimants argued ‌they had provided the vast majority of the documents required and stressed ‌the litigation’s wider importance for contact sports in the UK.

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”.

Cook said he decided “with some hesitation” that they should proceed to trial, subject to “conditions” to be decided at a further hearing.

He continued that there were “exceptional circumstances” in the case and that it had a “particular element of public importance going beyond the individual claims”.

He said: “This litigation has the potential to greatly impact the way in which one of our national sports is conducted at amateur and professional levels. I of course recognise the countervailing public interest that litigation should be conducted efficiently.”

Almost 800 former rugby union players – including Steve Thompson and ​Phil Vickery, members of England’s 2003 World Cup-winning team – are suing World Rugby, the RFU and the WRU. More than 300 former rugby league players are also taking legal action.

The former players say repeated concussive and sub-concussive blows ⁠left them with serious neurological conditions and allege the governing ​bodies breached their duty ​of care by failing ​to protect them from those risks.

The governing bodies, however, dispute ​that there is, ‌or was, any ​such duty ​of care that extended to include the long-term risk of serious neurological conditions and World Rugby argued in its written defence that injuries are an “inherent risk” in rugby.