The brain injury case involving hundreds of former rugby union and rugby league players avoided a potential collapse after the High Court in London granted an extension allowing the claims to continue. The decision by Judge Cook came after 530 claimants failed to comply with a court order concerning the disclosure of documentation relating to their neurological testing, a situation that had pushed the proceedings to the brink. The players’ representative, Susan Rodway KC, had warned at the previous hearing that the claimants were “on the brink”, amid the possibility that their cases could be permanently excluded.
The situation changed with the departure of Rylands Garth and lawyer Richard Boardman, who had led the litigation for the past five years, and the arrival of KP Law, a firm with greater experience in group litigation. The claimants themselves had unanimously agreed to end their relationship with their previous legal representatives after concluding that they were not in a position to continue managing the case. Former Welsh international Alix Popham, who spoke on behalf of the players, said that the committee and claimants had not been properly informed about the existing deficiencies and had received assurances for months regarding the progress of the litigation.
530 players were excluded from the case over missing documentation
Failure to meet disclosure obligations had put the continuation of hundreds of claims at risk. Cook determined that 377 rugby union claimants and a further 153 rugby league claimants had failed to provide the defendants with all the necessary documentation relating to their neurological testing. The 530 players had been excluded from the proceedings, a measure the judge had considered justified given the way the case had been handled up to that point. However, the change in legal representation led the court to reconsider the situation and ultimately allowed those affected to regain the opportunity to continue with their claims.
Cook’s position regarding the previous legal representation was particularly critical. The judge stated that, had Boardman remained in charge of the litigation, he would not have had confidence that future court orders would be complied with on time, or even complied with at all. At the same time, he rejected the argument that the defendants had contributed to delays in the proceedings by placing an excessive workload on Rylands Garth. According to Cook, the obligation to disclose the information rested with the claimants, and evidence submitted by the defendants showed that they had reviewed the documents received, identified gaps and promptly requested the missing information.
KP Law takes over representation ahead of the next stage of proceedings
With KP Law taking over, the case enters a new phase in which the priority will be to correct the documentary deficiencies identified by the court. The firm has committed to forming a team with sufficient resources to locate, compile and submit the outstanding copies before the hearing scheduled for November. If those obligations are met, the litigation will move to the next stage, in which both sides will have to submit their lists of potential lead claimants. World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union, among other rugby union defendants, welcomed the ruling and said they hoped the case could move forward under the new representation and in accordance with the court’s requirements.
For the players, the change of lawyers also means regaining the opportunity for their experiences to be heard within proceedings that have been developing for years. Popham told the court that the claimants had only recently understood the seriousness of the situation, after receiving repeated assurances about the progress of the case. KP Law, for its part, described the decision as a significant step for those affected and said its priority would be to support its clients and advance the claims. The firm must now undertake a substantial task: organising the outstanding documentation from 530 players and meeting the requirements set by the court so that the litigation can continue.
Last related articles
