Our previous blog discusses what an unless order is and the importance of it in probate claims. What if a party did not breach an order or procedural rule, can the court still make an unless order? The answer is yes. Noting that the sanction in an unless order only takes effect where non-compliance with an order is established by admission/proof and subject to any application for relief from sanctions.
Hughes and Others v World Rugby Ltd and Others [2025] EWHC 3382 (KB)
Background
This case was in relation to personal injury claims by approximately 1,000 former rugby players against the governing bodies.
The court required the Claimants to disclose all of their medical records and all of the documents in relation to a private medical testing process involving neurology interviews, neuropsychological assessments and brain scans.
The Claimants failed to comply with the court’s directions on disclosure deadlines and believed that they only needed to disclose documents in their possession or that they relied upon.
At the case management conference in July 2025, the Defendants sought to strike out the Claimants’ claim for non-compliance with the court’s directions.
The court decided that the Claimants misunderstood what disclosure was actually required and made case management orders (including unless orders) to ensure compliance with disclosure obligations.
The Claimants appealed against the case management orders claiming that the court erred in making unless orders that carried a sanction of striking out the claims.
Can courts make unless orders without proven breach?
Decision
Generally, it is inappropriate for an appellate court to interfere with a case management decision unless it was plainly wrong. The court followed this general approach and decided that:-
- The court’s conventional powers of case management are ‘very wide indeed’ – it can ‘take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective’;
- The Claimants’ interpretation of the court’s directions was wrong – the Defendants were not allowed to medically examine the Claimants so full disclosure of medical records was the only fair route to identify the causation issues, alternative head injury causes and suitable lead Claimants; and
- It was not a necessary precondition for the making of an unless order for there to be finding of a breach or non-compliance with an order against a party. It was unnecessary and disproportionate to investigate each allegedly non-compliant Claimant individually and make specific findings, which would have consumed a considerable amount of court time and costs.
How can we help
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact usIf this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.