Claimants seek extension to appeal court order they call ‘disproportionate and oppressive’
Lawyers representing hundreds of former rugby players have opposed the striking out of some of their claims in a group injury action over alleged brain damage.
At an all-day hearing on Friday, the claimants applied for an extension of time to appeal an order which could result in the strike out of a number of claims. The application related to alleged non-compliance concerning the filing and service of medical reports.
In the substantive class action, hundreds of current and former rugby union and rugby league players claim to 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 strike out their claims if all medical reports were not served.
Mr Justice Dexter Dias, sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice, heard that 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.”
Embed from Getty Images
Susan Rodway KC, representing the claimants, told the court: “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 affects 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 her written submissions, Ms Rodway stated: “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.”
Part of the order requires the Rugby League claimants to disclose all documents referred to as part of the “testing process,” including neurology interviews, neuropsychological assessments and brain scans.
The claimants submitted that “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 have argued that the judge was entitled to make the order.
The hearing, which had been listed for a full day, was adjourned and will be relisted for a later date to allow oral submissions from the defendants.