Adam Hughes & Ors v World Rugby Limited & Ors

An unless order may be made under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 without a prior finding of default in every individual claim. The court must identify the order’s purpose and ensure that the condition and sanction are proportionate and effective. Any sanction is triggered only when default is admitted or proved; a bare assertion by the benefiting party is insufficient.

Appellate interference with case-management decisions is justified only where the decision falls outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement. In large-scale multi-party litigation, a judge may use general unless orders to address systemic disclosure failures without conducting a claimant-by-claimant breach inquiry. Parties must comply rigorously with procedural rules and court orders, and applications for extensions of time must be made promptly.

The judgment concerned appeals by former rugby union and rugby league players against case-management orders made by Senior Master Cook in coordinated personal-injury litigation concerning alleged brain injuries caused by rugby participation.

The orders required disclosure of testing-process documents and medical records, supported by unless provisions under which claims could be struck out for established default. The appeals challenged the legal preconditions for unless orders, the scope and proportionality of disclosure obligations, the application of orders to later-joined claimants, the requirement for an affidavit verifying compliance, and the refusal to extend time or grant permission to appeal.

1. Appeal test. Case-management decisions attract substantial appellate restraint. The question is whether the decision was plainly wrong and outside the generous ambit within which reasonable decision-makers may disagree. An appeal is a review, not a rehearing. Orders are construed according to their natural and ordinary meaning, read in context and having regard to their purpose.
2. Unless orders. Under rule 3.1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, an unless order requires a condition and specifies a consequence for non-compliance. A prior finding of default is not a legal precondition to making the order, including where systemic error in a large multi-party litigation justifies a general order. The court must identify the purpose of the condition and ensure that the order is proportionate and effective. The sanction takes effect only where default is admitted or established by evidence and a court finding; a defendant’s assertion alone cannot trigger strike out. Relief from sanctions remains available.
3. Application to the rugby litigation. The disclosure orders required all relevant medical records and documents generated by the testing process, not merely documents held by the claimants’ solicitors or relied upon by the claimants’ experts. The orders served the legitimate purpose of enabling fair selection of representative lead claimants and assessment of causation. Given repeated extensions, serious and generalised misunderstandings of disclosure duties, and the importance of disclosure to case management, general unless orders and an affidavit verifying compliance were proportionate.
4. Later-joined claimants were subject to case-management directions made while the claims were being managed together under Part 3. The court rejected the contention that they were procedurally untethered from earlier orders.
5. The RU and RL appeals were dismissed. Extensions of time and permission to appeal were refused, save that permission would have been granted on RL Ground 1 if time had been extended. Consequential orders were left for further submissions.

This was a first appeal from case-management orders made by Senior Master Cook, including orders dated 23 February 2024, 17 June 2024, 14 June 2024 and July 2025. The High Court dismissed both the rugby union and rugby league appeals, refused extensions of time and generally refused permission to appeal.