World Rugby, along with the Rugby Football Union (RFU) and the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU), is seeking to dismiss nearly 380 lawsuits filed by former rugby union players alleging neurological injuries sustained during their careers. The defendants argue that the claimants’ lawyers repeatedly failed to provide key medical evidence, breaching court-ordered disclosure requirements.

The legal action stems from claims by approximately 800 current and former amateur and professional players who contend that repeated concussive and subconcussive impacts during rugby caused serious neurological conditions. The claimants maintain that the governing bodies breached their duty of care by not adequately protecting players from these risks. However, World Rugby and the associated unions contend in their written defense that rugby inherently carries such risks and that they owed no specific duty to guard against them.

Since the case’s inception in 2022, the proceedings have encountered significant delays, primarily related to the disclosure of documents. Disputes over disclosure have similarly affected related litigation involving former rugby league players. Both World Rugby and the Rugby Football League, together with the British Amateur Rugby League Association, have petitioned London’s High Court to strike out the claims due to noncompliance with disclosure orders, particularly the failure to provide recordings of neurology interviews conducted prior to the initiation of the lawsuits.

Neil Block, representing the RFU, expressed frustration before the court, stating that the unions have made repeated efforts to obtain the necessary documents and emphasized the importance of complying with court directives. He noted, “Enough is enough,” underscoring the governing bodies’ stance that the lack of cooperation warrants dismissal of the claims.

Conversely, lawyers for the claimants argue that they have submitted the majority of the required documents and contend that dismissal on procedural grounds would be a disproportionate and severe outcome. Susan Rodway, representing the group of former players, described it as “highly undesirable” for the cases to be thrown out purely due to disclosure disputes, emphasizing the seriousness of the health issues involved.

The outcome of the court’s decision on whether to proceed with or dismiss the lawsuits will have significant implications for player welfare accountability in rugby and could influence the handling of similar claims in contact sports.