By Sam Tobin and William James
LONDON, Aug 21 (Reuters) – World Rugby and four British governing bodies lost an attempt on Friday to end concussion lawsuits involving more than 500 former rugby union and league players, after London’s High Court ruled the cases could continue.
The wider litigation includes England’s 2003 World Cup winners Steve Thompson and Phil Vickery among almost 800 former rugby union players suing over neurological injuries they say were caused by repeated blows to the head. More than 300 former rugby league players are also taking legal action.
The governing bodies asked for a ruling which would end the cases of more than 500 former professional and amateur players over both codes.
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’ former lawyers had repeatedly failed to provide medical records.
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”.
In a joint statement, World Rugby, the RFU and the WRU said they hoped that the litigation could now move forward “in the best interests of the players and the sport.”
KP Law, the claimants’ new legal representatives, described the ruling as “a significant step” for the former players.
“Our priority is to support our clients with the care and sensitivity these issues demand, and this outcome reinforces our determination to hold the defendants to account,” KP Law said in a statement.
The case began in 2022 but has been dogged by delays over disclosure, as has a parallel action by ex-rugby league players.
The ex-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.
(Reporting by Sam Tobin and William James; Editing by Sam Tabahriti and Toby Davis)
Comments