High Court grants rugby head injury claimants relief from sanctions after solicitor switch to KP Law and Leigh Day
Senior Master Cook has granted relief from sanctions to hundreds of former rugby players whose claims had been struck out for failing to comply with court disclosure orders, after the claimants switched solicitors from Rylands Garth to class action specialists KP Law, with assistance from Leigh Day. Around 530 claimants across the rugby union and league litigation had claims struck out due to inadequate disclosure of medical records. The judge said that had Richard Boardman, principal of Rylands Garth, continued to conduct the proceedings, he could not have had "any confidence that future court orders would be complied with timeously or at all." The switch to KP Law, described as having "sufficient resources," was a decisive factor in granting relief. The overall litigation covers approximately 1,000 claimants who allege they sustained serious head injuries, including concussions and sub-concussive permanent brain damage, from collision forces during rugby matchplay or training. They claim the defendant governing bodies, including World Rugby and UK rugby bodies, failed to do enough to protect them. A witness statement from former Welsh international Alix Popham, on behalf of the union players committee, told the court the committee had "progressively lost confidence" in Rylands Garth's ability to manage proceedings, including failures to comply with court requirements and to communicate adequately with claimants. The players had originally intended to switch to Leigh Day but it was unable to complete its due diligence in the required timeframe. James Oldnall, managing partner of Milberg London, has been appointed as independent counsel to the players' committee to advise on the relationship with KP Law and litigation funder Asertis, noting that Asertis and KP Law are part of the same corporate group.
Why this matters
This ruling keeps a significant group litigation covering roughly 1,000 former professional rugby players alive despite serious procedural failures by the claimants' previous solicitors, setting a notable precedent on relief from sanctions in large-scale group actions. The judge's reasoning turns on whether adequate resourcing and firm credibility can rehabilitate a case after repeated unless-order failures, a question with direct implications for how courts treat claimant-side resource constraints in future mass tort proceedings. The conflict of interest tension flagged between KP Law and funder Asertis being in the same corporate group also raises governance questions that will require close monitoring as the litigation progresses. The parallel football brain injury litigation, which Rylands Garth still runs for a group of 23 former players suing the Football Association, English Football League and FA of Wales, remains a connected thread.
On the Ground
This matter activates sports litigation, group action management, and costs and funding practice areas. The relationship between KP Law and Asertis illustrates the growing intersection of litigation funding and claimant law firm structures, an area attracting increasing regulatory attention. Claimant-side firms advising on group actions will need to consider resourcing declarations carefully after this judgment. A trainee on this matter would assist with disclosure review and categorisation of medical records, preparation of witness statement bundles, chronology preparation to track compliance with unless orders, and court filing and service.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“How should a claimant law firm manage the conflict of interest risks when its litigation funder is part of the same corporate group, and what procedural safeguards would you advise?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved