Greenfield v Australian Rugby League Commission Ltd [2018] NSWSC 359

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Greenfield v Australian Rugby League Commission Ltd [2018] NSWSC 359 Hearing dates: 21 March 2018 Date of orders: 21 March 2018 Decision date: 21 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: (1) The Notice of Motion filed 31 August 2017 is dismissed. (2) Order each party to pay their own costs of the motion. (3) Stand the proceedings over before the Registrar on 18 April 2018 at 9.00am at which time the parties will be expected to provide agreed short minutes indicating a timetable to enable the matter to be brought to a hearing as soon as it is practicable. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – interlocutory proceedings –notice of motion alleging contempt for failure to comply with subpoena – UCPR r 33.12 – where failure of parties to act expeditiously – overriding purpose – notice of motion dismissed Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: Not Applicable Texts Cited: Not Applicable Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Michael Greenfield (P) Australian Rugby League Commission Ltd (D) Representation: Counsel: R Brown (P) M Milton (D) File Number(s): 2015/87313 Publication restriction: Not Applicable

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Plaintiff's Claim 1. These proceedings are brought by the plaintiff, Mr Michael Greenfield, claiming damages from the Australian Rugby League Commission Ltd (the defendant) as a consequence of serious personal injuries suffered in an incident on 25 May 2012. 2. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was playing professionally for the Melbourne Storm Rugby League Football Club in the National Rugby League ("NRL") competition. It is alleged that at that time the defendant was the body responsible for administering and supervising the game of rugby league. 3. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this judgment to set out the whole of the claim by the plaintiff but, in brief, he alleges that he suffered his serious injury as a result of being subject to what has been described as a "shoulder charge tackle", or perhaps more accurately "a shoulder charge", a physical manoeuvre that was permitted to occur in the NRL competition games, but had previously been banned for all rugby league players in competitions for those under the age of 18. 4. The thrust of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was that it knew about the existence of this feature of the game. It knew that data prior to 25 May 2012, revealed that the average impact force of a shoulder charge tackle was considerably higher than the force generated from conventional front-on or other forms of tackling. It is alleged that it also knew that a significant percentage of shoulder charge tackles, in the order of 16%, had the potential to result in head or neck injuries and concussion. 5. Against that background, it is alleged that the defendant owed an obligation to alter the rules of rugby league for the NRL to prevent the use of shoulder charge tackles. 6. The plaintiff claims damages because he says that, having sustained serious personal injuries, he is now unable to play rugby league again and to obtain the financial benefits of his skill in that form of professional sporting endeavour and other aspects of his working life.