Hundreds of head injury claims from former rugby players have narrowly survived strike-out attempts.
Senior Master Cook ruled today in Hughes & Ors v World Rugby Limited & Ors that he should apply relief from sanctions in the interests of justice, despite court orders being repeatedly missed.
But the master imposed conditions on his decision and was highly critical of the handling of the claims by the players’ former solicitor Richard Boardman, owner of London firm Rylands Garth, which has now come off the record.
Earlier this week it was revealed that KP Law had agreed to represent the claimants ahead of the court's ruling on the strike-out applications from rugby's governing bodies.
Cook said the court could ‘take comfort’ from the fact that the claimants are no longer to be represented by Rylands Garth. ‘Had Mr Boardman remained the solicitor conducting this litigation, I could not have had any confidence that future court orders would be complied with timeously or at all,’ the master added.
In the claim, around 1,000 claimants spanning the two rugby codes say they sustained serious head injuries due to the collision forces from impacts during matchplay or training. The defendants assert that they have taken appropriate action to reduce the risk of neurological injury and they take issue with the claimants’ case on causation on both a generic and individual basis.
Rylands Garth is a relatively new firm with one qualified solicitor - Boardman. Cook said he had been ‘concerned for some time’ as to the ability of Boardman and his firm to deploy sufficient resources to conduct such complex and large-scale litigation.
The court heard there have been persistent issues with obtaining proper disclosure of medical records by the claimants. Disclosure requests and unless orders were not complied with, despite deadline extensions being agreed.
During the strike-out application hearing, the master was provided with an email from Boardman setting out how he was coming off the record and had brought in claimant firm Leigh Day as consultant. Boardman assured the court it would be an ‘orderly handover’ to provide confidence that the litigation would be properly conducted.
Leigh Day opted not to come on the record but will continue as a consultant on the litigation for KP Law.
The master outlined how hundreds of claimants have failed to provide neurology interviews, clinical summaries or prognosis reports. Cook said Boardman had ‘repeatedly confirmed compliance with his obligations whilst failing to deal methodically and sensibly with the issues raised by the defendants’.
He added: In short I have confidence in, and accept the evidence contained in, the defendants' witness statements. I do not have the same confidence in the evidence of Mr Boardman.’
The master observed that Boardman had been warned several times by the court about the scope of his disclosure obligations and had been given multiple opportunities to comply with an order from June 2024. ‘His continued failure to grasp a fundamental element of civil litigation cannot in any circumstances amount to a good reason for the default.’
But Cook was prepared ‘with some hesitation’ to grant relief from sanction, subject to conditions about disclosure obligations to be decided at a later date. He said the litigation was still a long way from trial and that delays could be remedied by tight case management.
He said the appointment of new solicitors with sufficient resources to conduct the litigation was an important factor and that ‘blameless’ individual claimants should not suffer from their lawyers’ conduct. Striking out the claims would also lead to a large number of claims for loss of chance against Rylands Garth, which would in turn place significant extra pressure on court resources.
‘Given the vulnerability of many of these claimants, it might be said that they should not be punished for the sins of their legal representative,’ Cook added. Relief will be conditional on the claimants paying the defendants' costs incurred in enforcing disclosure obligations.
No comments yet