\n<\/p>\n
World Rugby and four British governing bodies \u200clost an attempt on Friday to end concussion lawsuits involving more than 500 former rugby union and league players, after London\u2019s High Court ruled the cases could continue.<\/strong><\/p>\n The wider litigation includes England\u2019s 2003 World Cup winners Steve Thompson and \u200bPhil Vickery among almost 800 former rugby union players suing over neurological injuries they say \u200bwere caused by repeated blows to the head. More than 300 former rugby \u2060league players are also taking legal action.<\/p>\n The governing bodies asked for a ruling which would end the \u200bcases of more than 500 former professional and amateur players over both codes.<\/p>\n World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and \u200bthe Welsh Rugby Union, plus the Rugby Football League and the British Amateur Rugby League Association, argued the claimants\u2019 former lawyers had repeatedly failed to provide medical records.<\/p>\n But lawyers representing the claimants argued they had provided the vast majority \u200bof the documents required and stressed the litigation\u2019s wider importance for contact sports in the UK.<\/p>\n Judge \u200bJeremy Cook said in a written ruling that the cases could continue subject to the production of the missing \u200cdocuments, adding \u2060that the \u201cindividual claimants are blameless\u201d.<\/p>\n In a joint statement, World Rugby, the RFU and the WRU said they hoped that the litigation could now move forward \u201cin the best interests of the players and the sport.\u201d<\/p>\n KP Law, the claimants\u2019 new legal representatives, described the ruling as \u201ca significant step\u201d for the former players.<\/p>\n \u201cOur priority \u200bis to support our \u200bclients with the care \u2060and sensitivity these issues demand, and this outcome reinforces our determination to hold the defendants to account,\u201d KP Law said in a statement.<\/p>\n The case began \u200bin 2022 but has been dogged by delays over disclosure, as has a parallel \u200baction by \u2060ex-rugby league players.<\/p>\n The ex-players say repeated concussive and sub-concussive blows left them with serious neurological conditions and allege the governing bodies breached their duty of care by failing to protect them from those risks.<\/p>\n The governing bodies, \u2060however, \u200bdispute that there is, or was, any such duty of \u200bcare that extended to include the long-term risk of serious neurological conditions, and World Rugby argued in its written defence that injuries are \u200ban \u201cinherent risk\u201d in rugby.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n