Rugby group claimants argue against 'oppressive' order

Lawyers for hundreds of former rugby players have argued against the striking out of some of the claims in their group injury claim.

At an all-day hearing on Friday they applied for an extension of time to appeal an order which could result in the strike out of a number of claims because of non-compliance relating to the filing and serving of medical reports.

In the substantive class action, hundreds of current and retired rugby union and rugby league players claim they have suffered lasting brain damage from collisions. 

In written submissions, the claimants described as 'perverse and disproportionate' a judge’s decision to make an order that would result in the strike out of the claim if all medical reports were not served. Mr Justice Dexter Dias, sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice, heard some condition and prognosis reports had already been disclosed. At a previous hearing ‘no findings’ were made that any of those reports were ‘non-compliant’.

Susan Rodway KC, for the claimants, said: ‘This is part of our complaint. We were told we were in breach but not in what particular way we were in breach. We are working in the dark.’ She added: ‘The matter of final orders as presently pursued effects every one of the affected players. All players are at the mercy of the strike out if they fail to comply with the terms of these orders made by the learned judge.’

In written submissions, she added: ‘The learned judge has provided no explanation of how, why or what can be done to remedy the position. The order is disproportionate and oppressive, irrational and perverse.’

Regarding part of the order which asks that the Rugby League claimants disclose all documents referred to as part of the ‘testing process’ which includes neurology interviews, neurophysical assessments and brain scans, the claimants said: ‘A less draconian and more proportionate order could have been made if it had been limited to these 19 identified [claimants] as against the 176 [Rugby League claimants] to whom it relates.’

The defendants argue the judge was entitled to make the order. The hearing, which was listed for a day, was adjourned to be listed for a later date to hear oral submissions from the defendants.