\n<\/p>\n
Rugby players who allege they suffered brain injuries during their careers have been refused permission to appeal against a decision ordering them to provide all of their medical records.<\/b><\/p>\n
More than 1,100 players \u2013 across both league and union<\/a> – claim they are suffering from conditions such as dementia, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease because of repeated impacts sustained throughout their careers.<\/p>\n They accuse World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union (RFU), the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU), the Rugby Football League (RFL) and others of failing to protect them from risks. The governing bodies deny liability.<\/p>\n In a previous hearing, Susan Rodway KC for the players said the order to provide medical records was “impossible, onerous and costly”.<\/p>\n But a High Court judge has refused the appeal, saying the order is “not disproportionate, oppressive, irrational or legally perverse”.<\/p>\n Rylands Garth, the law firm bringing the case, said it is grateful to the judge for providing clarity and that it would comply with the court’s orders.<\/p>\n Judge Dexter Dias said orders issued in February 2024 and 2025 which required the claimants to hand over medical records and all documents from neurological testing were proportionate and necessary to manage the litigation.<\/p>\n World Rugby, the RFU and the WRU said in a joint statement that “player welfare remains a central priority for rugby and we shall not stand still in this space”.<\/p>\n Steve Thompson, Mark Regan and Phil Vickery – part of England’s 2003 Rugby World Cup-winning squad – former Wales stars Gavin Henson, Colin Charvis and Ryan Jones and ex-England and British and Lions scrum-half Harry Ellis are among those seeking damages<\/a> from World Rugby, the RFU and the WRU.<\/p>\n In November, former British and Irish Lions Lee Byrne and Phil Greening<\/a> were confirmed to have joined the concussion lawsuit.<\/p>\n In their joint statement, the governing bodies said: “The judgement expressed concern that there has been a serious erosion of the court’s confidence in the way the disclosure process has been conducted, and noted that effective and fair disclosure of the relevant documents was ‘indispensable’ in the context of the case. <\/p>\n “As such many players in the case are at risk of having their claims struck out.”<\/p>\n