In a landmark decision that could shape the future of sports litigation in Britain, the High Court in London has dismissed an appeal from hundreds of former rugby players who allege they suffered debilitating brain injuries during their careers. The ruling, delivered by Justice Dexter Dias on December 23, 2025, mandates that the claimants must provide extensive medical records and neurological test results, a requirement that many had sought to overturn. The case, which has been winding its way through the courts for over four years, pits a growing cohort of former rugby union and rugby league players against some of the sport’s most powerful governing bodies, including World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union (RFU), and the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU).
At the heart of the dispute are claims from both professional and amateur players that repeated concussive and sub-concussive blows led to a litany of serious neurological conditions. The roster of ailments is sobering: chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), early-onset dementia, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and motor neurone disease. According to reporting by AFP and Reuters, the plaintiffs argue that the governing bodies knew—or should have known—about the risks but failed to take adequate steps to protect players or even to warn them about the dangers.
“We have suffered a range of neurological conditions such as early onset dementia, Parkinson’s, epilepsy and motor neurone disease because of repeated blows,” the players’ lawyers stated, according to AFP. Their contention is not only that the science was available, but that the resources to act upon it existed as well. Yet, they claim, the governing bodies breached their duty of care, exposing generations of players to irreversible harm.
The governing bodies, for their part, have consistently denied any wrongdoing and are defending the claims vigorously. In a joint statement following the most recent judgment, World Rugby, the RFU, and the WRU acknowledged the dismissal of the appeal and cautioned that “many players in the case are at risk of having their claims struck out.” The statement also underscored that “player welfare remains a central priority for rugby and we shall not stand still in this space.”
The recent hearing focused on a contentious set of case management court orders, specifically around the disclosure of medical records. The orders, first issued in February 2024 and reinforced in July 2025, require the claimants to submit all relevant medical documentation and neurological testing results. Failure to comply, the court made clear, could result in the claims being thrown out altogether.
Lawyers for the players, led by Susan Rodway, challenged these orders, describing them as “disproportionate and oppressive, irrational and perverse.” In written submissions, Rodway likened the task of gathering all the necessary records to “the folklore ‘wicked stepmothers’ who compel the princess to mow vast meadows using only nail scissors.” But Justice Dias was unswayed by such analogies. In his 71-page ruling, he wrote, “I cannot accept that the judge’s decision was unreasonable or perverse, or suffered from any of the further condemnatory adjectives the claimants have deployed at various points.” He added that the task had been “both misunderstood and exaggerated.”
Justice Dias further noted a “serious erosion of the confidence the court could safely place in the way the disclosure process had been conducted.” He explained that where medical evidence is unavailable or no longer exists, “the affidavit can simply explain that.” If difficulties arise beyond the claimants’ control, extensions can be applied for and justified. But, crucially, the court’s patience with incomplete or delayed disclosure appears to be wearing thin.
One striking aspect of the case is its sheer scale. Law firm Rylands Garth, which represents the ex-players, said in a statement that it has already disclosed “hundreds of thousands of pages of documents in support of the case against World Rugby, the RFU and WRU, as well as the rugby league defendants.” Many of these documents, the firm noted, were disclosed years ago. Yet, the defendants “have never formally responded to the claims and continue to attempt to hold up the case’s progress through the court.”
The court’s ruling doesn’t decide the question of liability. Instead, it enforces compliance with disclosure requirements after years of procedural wrangling and delays. This, in turn, clears the way for the selection of lead cases—those that will serve as bellwethers and help determine the outcome for the wider group of claimants. Rylands Garth confirmed that more than 1,000 former amateur and professional players have joined the action as of early 2025, a figure that underscores the case’s potential impact on the sport and its institutions.
Justice Dias’s judgment was clear on another point: the players’ legal team had misunderstood the scope of disclosure. The solicitor believed that only documents in hand or those relied upon needed to be provided, not the full medical history and all neurological testing records. When the breadth of the requirement became clear, the players argued it was impossible to comply. The judge, however, rejected this argument, writing, “I concur with the defendants’ submission that they are not simply seeking all medical records for the sake of it or to act in a ‘Machiavellian’ way.” He warned that an “erroneous inclusion of a claimant or claimants in the lead cohort may affect many other claims wrongly, unhelpfully or unfairly.”
Despite the setback, Rylands Garth struck a note of cautious optimism. “We are grateful to the judge for providing greater clarity regarding the required level of disclosure of claimants’ medical records,” a spokesperson said. The firm committed to comply with the court’s orders, emphasizing that they have already provided extensive documentation and remain focused on moving the case forward.
The governing bodies, meanwhile, have reiterated that player welfare is a top priority and have expressed their desire for the case to be heard as soon as possible. Yet, with more than a thousand claimants and hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence, the process is likely to be protracted.
For the former players at the center of the legal battle, the stakes are deeply personal. Many face daily struggles with memory loss, cognitive decline, and other symptoms they attribute to their time on the field. Their fight is not just for compensation, but for recognition of the risks they believe were long ignored or downplayed by those in charge of the game.
As the litigation grinds on, the outcome will be watched closely—not just by those involved, but by athletes, governing bodies, and fans across the sporting world. The case stands as a stark reminder of the long-term risks athletes may face, and of the legal and ethical responsibilities that come with managing a contact sport beloved by millions.
With the court’s latest ruling, the path forward is clearer, if no less daunting. The next phase will determine not just the fate of these claims, but potentially the future of how sports institutions handle player safety and accountability.