World Rugby has denied it owes a legal duty of care to players, arguing injuries are a “foreseeable and inherent risk” of the sport as it filed its defence to the concussion lawsuit.
The sport’s governing body, with the Rugby Football Union and Welsh Rugby Union, is being sued byhundreds of former players who claim they are suffering from neurological difficulties caused by repeated head contacts.
Rylands Garth, the law firm representing the claimants, alleges this amounts to a breach of the governing body’s duty of care to its players. However, in its written defence, which was filed at the High Court on Thursday, World Rugby’s lawyers stated that: “The Claimants’ pleaded case is that World Rugby, as the international governing body of the sport of Rugby Union, owed a duty of care, ‘to all players of rugby union’.
“The inference of this allegation is that World Rugby owed a duty of care to each and every player of the sport of Rugby Union wherever located in the world, at whatever level the sport was being played, regardless of the standard of rugby played, and regardless of any knowledge, awareness (still less control, or supervision) by World Rugby, and regardless of the time-period alleged… This is denied.
“In any event, as a matter of law, there is no duty owed to a participant in a sport (in particular a contact sport) to ensure that a participant is not exposed to a risk of injury inherent in participating in the sport itself.”
World Rugby also denies that it “knew at any material time of any established science supporting an association between non-concussive head acceleration events ... and neurological injury”, relating to the evolving science about chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and other neurodegenerative diseases.
It also rejected the premise that playing rugby union is likely to result in participants suffering a head injury. “It is denied that rugby union carries with it a ‘likelihood’ of head and brain injury. It is admitted that physical injury, including head and brain injury, is a foreseeable and inherent risk in the sport of rugby union, and that all those who participate in the game voluntarily accept this risk.”
The defence is scathing of the particulars of the claim filed by Rylands Garth in August 2025. World Rugby’s lawyers use the word “embarrassing” 19 times to describe their “for want of particularisation”, meaning their allegations are too vague to be understood. It also highlights that it has yet to receive full medical records for many of the players, more than five years since the claim was launched.
The latest case management hearing will take place at the High Court next month. There are two concurrent claims brought by Rylands against rugby league and football authorities on behalf of former players who also claim to be suffering from neurological difficulties.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.
