UK High Court Considers Strike-Out Of Rugby Brain-Injury Claims

The legal action against rugby’s governing bodies has been ongoing since 2020. Former rugby union and rugby league players allege that the governing bodies failed to put adequate safeguards in place to protect them from the consequences of repeated head impacts.

The defendants, including World Rugby, the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU), the Rugby Football Union (RFU) and the Rugby Football League (RFL), deny breaching their duty of care to protect players from injury.

The claimants include several high-profile former players, including England Rugby World Cup winners Steve Thompson, Mark Regan and Phil Vickery, and former Wales internationals Colin Charvis, Gavin Henson, Ryan Jones, Lee Byrne and Alix Popham.

The claimed injuries include Persistent Post-Concussion Syndrome, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, Early Onset Dementia, Parkinson’s Disease, Epilepsy and Motor Neurone Disease.

Procedural Background: Disclosure Disputes

The litigation has been marked by protracted disputes over the disclosure of medical records and documents generated through the claimants’ neurological testing process. The claimants’ solicitors, Rylands Garth Limited, implemented an internal testing process costing between £10,000 and £15,000 per claimant, comprising neurology interviews, neuropsychological assessments, and brain scans (MRI with imaging). The defendants sought disclosure of all documentation generated through this process to inform the selection of lead claimants.

December 2025 Judgment: Adam Hughes & Ors. v. World Rugby Limited & Ors. [2025] EWHC 3382 (KB)

On 22 December 2025, the Court dismissed the appeals against the case management orders. The appeals challenged “unless orders” made following case management conferences in July 2025, which required the claimants to comply with disclosure obligations on pain of strike-out.

The Court held that a finding of breach or non-compliance in individual cases is not a legal precondition for making an unless order. The Court emphasised that in large-scale multi-party litigation, it would be disproportionate to require claimant-by-claimant findings of breach before making general case management orders.

The Court affirmed the importance of appellate restraint in reviewing case management decisions, noting that such decisions fall within the “generous ambit” of judicial discretion and should not be disturbed unless “plainly wrong”. The Court dismissed both the rugby union and rugby league appeals in their entirety.

July 2026 Strike-Out Applications

During a two-day hearing in July 2026, the defendants applied to strike out the claims of 337 rugby union players and 153 rugby league players for alleged non-compliance with the unless orders. The applications focused on documents relating to the neurological testing process, with the defendants contending that continued failures to provide required material warranted strike-out to prevent further delays.

The claimants opposed the applications, arguing that striking out some players’ claims while allowing others to proceed would cause “significant injustice”.  The judgment is reserved on whether there had been breaches of the orders, whether the claims should be struck out, and what relief, if any, should be granted. The Court did not indicate a timeframe for delivering the reserved judgment.