Adam Hughes & Ors v World Rugby Limited & Ors

Clear and repeated non-compliance with unless orders requiring disclosure of medical testing material can justify strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(c). An order requiring all documents covers material not relied on, and disclosure may require copies rather than a statement that documents exist. Relief from sanctions requires the three-stage approach in Denton v TH White [2014] 1 WLR 3926. An unless order weighs against relief, but the court must assess all the circumstances. In large-scale group litigation, early stage, public importance, representative test claims, blameless claimants, replacement solicitors and costs-based protection for defendants may justify exceptional, conditional relief.

This first-instance decision concerns conjoined personal injury claims by approximately 1,000 former rugby union and rugby league players against the governing bodies of their sports. The defendants applied for declarations that identified claims stood struck out for failure to comply with unless orders requiring disclosure of medical records and testing-process documents. The claimants opposed strike out and applied for relief from sanction. Earlier appeals against case-management decisions had been dismissed by Dexter Dias J in [2025] EWHC 3382 (KB), and disclosure deadlines were later extended. The issues were the construction and compliance effect of the disclosure orders, the operation of the strike-out sanction, and whether relief under the Civil Procedure Rules 3.9 should be granted, including on conditions.

1. Disposition. The claims identified in the defendants’ evidence and submissions stood struck out. In rugby union, 377 claims were affected. In rugby league, 153 of 173 claims in claim forms 1 and 3 were struck out and 20 survived. Relief from sanction was nevertheless granted in principle to all struck-out claimants, subject to a further hearing on conditions.
2. Construction of the disclosure orders. The requirement for all documents forming part of the testing process was comprehensive and non-exhaustive. It included neurology interview material, brain scans and reports, different DTI report versions and assessment summaries, even where the claimants did not rely on them. The scope was fixed by the orders, not by the solicitor’s later understanding of them.
3. In context, disclosure required copies of documents, not merely a statement that they existed under the Civil Procedure Rules 31.2. Privilege could not justify non-compliance. The court held that privilege had been waived and that its earlier ruling requiring disclosure of all documents obtained as part of the testing process had not been displaced on appeal.
4. The defendants’ evidence and schedules were accepted where they conflicted with the claimants’ evidence. The defaults were serious, significant, widespread and inadequately explained. Late production remained non-compliance. The applicable unless orders therefore engaged the strike-out sanction under the Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)(c).
5. For relief from sanctions, the court applied the three-stage framework in Denton v TH White ([2014] 1 WLR 3926): seriousness and significance; the reason for default; and all the circumstances. The breaches were serious and significant. A mistaken understanding of clear orders, reliance on third parties and late attempts to obtain documents did not amount to a good reason where the responsible solicitor should have understood and checked the disclosure obligations.
6. An unless order weighs against relief, as recognised in Eaglesham v Ministry of Defence ([2016] EWHC 3011 (QB)), but the court must still balance all the circumstances. As explained in Cavadore Ltd and another v Jawa ([2021] EWHC 3382 (Ch)), relief may be granted where refusal would be disproportionate to the default.
7. At the third stage, the court gave weight to the early stage of the litigation, the possibility of a fair trial, its wider public importance, the need for a properly representative range of test claims, the claimants’ lack of personal responsibility for the defaults, and the appointment of adequately resourced new solicitors. Delay and costs could be addressed by rigorous case management and costs protection.
8. Relief was conditional, at minimum, on payment of the defendants’ costs of securing compliance to date and production of the missing documents. The precise conditions were left for a further hearing.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment records that the claimants’ earlier appeals against case-management decisions were dismissed by Dexter Dias J in [2025] EWHC 3382 (KB) ; the disclosure deadline was then extended. This court determined the defendants’ strike-out applications and the claimants’ applications for relief from sanction.