A significant High Court hearing has put the spotlight on the limits of QOCS protection and the consequences of serious procedural failures in large-scale personal injury litigation.
Hundreds of current and former rugby players are bringing linked claims against the governing bodies of rugby league and rugby union, alleging that they failed to protect players from neurological injury.
The proceedings are among the largest group personal injury actions in British legal history — and the latest ruling could have wider implications for how costs and procedural compliance are approached in complex litigation.
A case on the brink
The latest hearing followed Senior Master Cook’s ruling on 21 August 2026, when the claims were automatically struck out following persistent and serious disclosure failures by the claimants’ former solicitors.
The court nevertheless granted relief from sanction, allowing the claims to be reinstated — but only if strict conditions were met, including compliance with outstanding disclosure orders and payment of the defendants’ costs.
The 2 October hearing before Senior Master Cook, sitting with Cotter J and Master Stevens, focused on what those conditions would mean in practice.
QOCS put to the test
A key issue was Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS), which ordinarily provides personal injury claimants with significant protection against adverse costs orders.
There were arguments about whether the claimants could be required to waive that protection, or whether QOCS could be displaced because of the circumstances surrounding the strike-out and the conduct of the former solicitors.
There were also applications for wasted costs against the former solicitors and non-party costs against the litigation funders.
Ultimately, however, the court found a more direct route.
The claimants were ordered to pay the defendants’ costs, with strict deadlines for assessment, payment and payment on account. Failure to comply would mean that the claims remained struck out.
Why is this important?
The decision appears to be the first reported case in which personal injury claimants have been required to pay costs despite retaining the benefit of QOCS protection.
Importantly, though, the court did not have to determine the wider question of exactly when QOCS protection can be circumvented or displaced in circumstances such as these. The claimants conceded the costs order during the hearing, meaning those important questions remain open for another day.
What the decision does demonstrate is the potential consequences of serious procedural failures in high-value, group litigation — and the importance of strict compliance with court orders.
For practitioners involved in complex personal injury claims, particularly those involving group litigation, funding and QOCS, this is a decision worth watching closely.
See link to judgment here:
Hughes & Ors v World Rugby Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 2149 (KB) (21 August 2026)
If you would like to speak to us or obtain further information, then please call 0870 766 9997, or email info@boxlegal.co.uk.
