Judge retires after two-day hearing as bid to strike out 95% of 561 rugby claimants looms

A landmark lawsuit over alleged brain damage sustained in rugby is at risk of collapse after the managing judge retired to consider whether to strike out 95% of the first batch of 561 claimants for failing to disclose neurological-testing documents. Senior Master Cook told lawyers the case had entered "uncharted territory" and has paused proceedings to prepare his ruling.

The dispute, heard over two days at the Royal Courts of Justice, concerns a group action brought by players alleging long-term brain injury. The judge said the proposed wholesale strike-out arises from non-compliance with a court order requiring disclosure of all available documents relating to neurological testing. Senior Master Cook attributed responsibility for the procedural impasse to solicitor Richard Boardman during the hearing on 23 July 2026.

Court submissions focused on whether the conduct of the claimants — and the material they have or have not produced — meets the requirements set out in the order. Counsel for the defendants argued that the absence of full disclosure undermines the proper progress of the litigation and justified the extreme sanction now under consideration. The threshold being applied is the failure to provide all available documents relevant to neurological testing, a point emphasised repeatedly during the two days of hearings.

Senior Master Cook said he had been unable to locate any direct legal precedent to guide his decision, a concern he expressed in open court as he reserved judgment. He used the phrase "uncharted territory" to describe the situation and signalled that the consequences of his ruling could be significant for the group action. Given the novelty of the procedural questions raised, the judge took time away from court to consider the legal principles and the appropriate remedy.

The potential strike-out would affect the first tranche of claimants in the multi-party case, with 95% of the 561 named in that batch at risk if the judge concludes the non-disclosure is sanctionable to that extent. Lawyers on both sides presented argument over whether lesser sanctions or extension of disclosure obligations might be ordered instead of removal from the claim. Those submissions were tested across two days at the Royal Courts of Justice before the judge's retirement to make a decision.

During the hearing Senior Master Cook explicitly blamed solicitor Richard Boardman for aspects of the current predicament, attributing responsibility for the circumstances that led to the application for strike-out. The judge’s comments underscored the procedural focus of the contested application rather than the substantive merits of the underlying allegations of brain injury.

The judge has now withdrawn to consider his ruling, leaving the future of much of the initial group action uncertain. A decision from Senior Master Cook will determine whether the vast majority of the 561 claimants remain in the case or are removed for failing to comply with disclosure obligations.