World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union (RFU), and the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) have applied to London's High Court to dismiss lawsuits from 378 former rugby union players alleging neurological injuries linked to repeated concussions and sub-concussive impacts [1, 2, 3, 4]. The Rugby Football League (RFL) and British Amateur Rugby League Association asked the court to throw out 132 similar claims from former rugby league players on the same grounds [1, 2].
These legal actions stem from claims by around 800 former rugby union players and 130 rugby league players who say they suffer catastrophic brain injuries caused by the sport's physical contact [1, 3]. The lawsuits allege repeated blows to the head caused neurological damage, with some players reportedly suffering severe consequences including suicide [4].
The governing bodies argue that the claimants' lawyers failed to disclose key medical documents and recordings as ordered by the court, warranting dismissal of large numbers of claims. Neil Block, lawyer for the RFU, said, "Enough is enough. These are important documents ... an order was made that we were entitled to have them and we have tried in every way" to obtain them [1].
Claimants' lawyers countered that any breaches of disclosure were neither serious nor significant. Susan Rodway KC, representing the players, said, "This litigation is of significant public interest and societal importance for the continuance of contact/collision sports in the UK. It would be highly undesirable for a significant number of the former players to lose their claims on procedural grounds" [2]. She added, "There is a sword hanging over these players. Although the issues are generic the impact of them relates to distinct individuals who have suffered life-changing injuries, and who have suffered enormous stress and anxiety" [4].
The legal case dates back to 2020 for concussion claims generally, with the rugby union lawsuits officially starting in 2022 [1, 2, 3]. Case progress has been impeded largely by disputes over document disclosure. Senior Master Jeremy David Cook, overseeing the litigation, described himself as "frustrated from day one at the progress of this litigation. I expect that the pace is picked up. The litigants are passengers in the lengthy process" [2].
In another key development on July 22, 2026, solicitors Richard Boardman and the firm Rylands Garth requested to step down as lead lawyers following criticism from the judge over case management. The claimants have ended instructions with Rylands Garth and are preparing to appoint a new firm, likely Leigh Day, which has been consulting on the case since February 2026 [4]. Senior Master Cook called the solicitor change a "dramatic development," emphasizing concerns over delays and the risk of claims being struck out, which could remove hundreds of claimants from the litigation [2, 4].
The court will now consider the governing bodies' applications to dismiss the claims and respond to the solicitor changes as the case moves toward resolution.
