Case Law Analysis: Haylen v NSW Rugby Union - Legal Case Study

This case study analyzes the case of Peter Joseph Haylen vs. NSW Rugby Union Ltd 2002, focusing on the legal arguments presented by both the plaintiff and the defendant, and the subsequent decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case revolves around the duty of care owed by the NSW Rugby Union to a player who suffered a quadriplegic injury during a rugby match. The paper outlines the facts of the case, the issues of duty of care and negligence, and the arguments put forth by both parties. The plaintiff argued that the defendant, as the governing body, had a duty to ensure player safety, while the defendant denied owing such a duty. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the organization did not have a duty of care in this instance. The analysis includes a critical examination of the court's decision from the defendant's perspective, considering issues such as the voluntariness of participation in the sport and the difficulty in defining 'unnecessary risk.' The conclusion reflects on the significance of the ruling within the context of sports law and the legal responsibilities of governing bodies.

Law 1
Law

Human Resource management 2
Introduction:
Rugby is considered as type of football which is played with the oval shaped ball, and in this
game more activities are included instead of handling. This game includes high risk of injuries.
This paper discussed the case law Peter Joseph Haylen vs. NSW rugby union Ltd 2002, which
was filed in the supreme court of New South Wales common law division. This case was filed by
the plaintiff named Peter Joseph Haylen against the defendant New South Wales rugby union
limited. For the purpose of this assignment I would like to represent this case on part of
defendant that was Peter Joseph Haylen.
Structure of this paper includes brief facts of the case, issues raised by both the parties,
arguments stated by both the parties, decision taken by the Court, critical analysis of the decision
taken by the Court from the point of view of plaintiff and for this purpose different points are
analyzed. Lastly, brief conclusion is provided to put this paper on end.
Brief facts of the case:
On 17th April 1982, injury was suffered by the Peter Joseph Haylen (Plaintiff) which cause
quadriplegia at the time when plaintiff was playing Second Grade Colts rugby union football
match as a member of the Sydney University Football Club team against the St George Rugby
Union Club team.
On 15th April 1988, two sets of proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff in the Common Law
Division of the NSW Court. First set of proceeding (Proceedings No 11883/88) were initiated
against the NSW Rugby Union Limited (NSWRU) and the second set of proceeding
(Proceedings No 11884/88) was initiated by the plaintiff against the University of Sydney.
In this case, it was believed by the plaintiff that NSWRU owns duty of care towards the plaintiff
in context of authority which regulates and monitor the rules related to the rugby union in New
South Wales and must ensure that the players such as plaintiff does not bare to serious injury.
This was the reason, when plaintiff suffered serious injury in a scrum which resulted in
quadriplegic makes the NSWRU negligent in failing to take proper care of the plaintiff and fails
to warning him related to the risk of injury while playing the sport.

Human Resource management 3
The central issue in this case was whether defendant owns any duty of care towards the plaintiff
or not.
In this case, high Court stated that the board does not own any duty of care because it was too
remote on part of the NSW administration of the game. Court further stated that, danger was
generally part of the attraction for players and decision of the plaintiff to participate in the game
was free decision because of which responsibility of the injury was autonomy. Plaintiff argued
that his client’s case was different from the ruling provided by the High Court, because the game
was propagating, controlling and organizing by the NSWRU in the NSW. Judge of the NSW
Supreme Court stated that issues raised in this case can be applied on dangerous sports, including
basketball, boxing or those at the Winter Olympics (Austlii, 2002).
Issues of both the parties:
First and most important question in this case deals with the duty of care and the concept of the
legal responsibility in context of the contact sports such as sports such as rugby football. Parties
of the dispute were mainly at the issue as to what was the ratio decidendi of the decision of the
High Court.
The original statement in this case which was stated in the first set of proceedings materially
pleaded the integration of the defendant, and the defendant number of time propagated the game
of rugby union in the State of NSW. In this plaintiff stated that defendant own s duty of care
towards him because they organize and regulates the game of rugby union and were responsible
not to bare the plaintiff towards the unnecessary risk of injury. Team of the plaintiff packed over
before engaging with the opposite team and the second row pushed forward before such
engagement and this result in collapse of two props with the plaintiff and pushed him forwards
because of which he pinned his arms and broke his spine and became a quadriplegic.
Plaintiff further stated that defendant breach his duty of care because he failed to take proper care
of the safety of the plaintiff while regulating and controlling the game. This was the reason of the
breach because of which plaintiff suffered injury (ESPN, 2002).
On the part of defendant, question arise was there was no such evidence present which stated that
defendant regulate or controls the game in such manner which was state by the plaintiff. In other

Human Resource management 4
words, defendant stated that he does not own any such duty towards the plaintiff and there was
no breach of duty of care?
Arguments by both the parties:
In this plaintiff stated that defendant breaches his duty of care negligently because he does not
take proper care of the plaintiff safety while paying the game of rugby union. Because of this
breach of duty of care, plaintiff suffered the injury. Injury suffered by plaintiff was happened
because of the defendant negligence, and this can be said on the basis of following arguments:
 Defendant propagates the game even when the rules related to the game exposed the
person playing the game to the unnecessary risk of injury.
 Defendant fails to control or regulate the game properly in context of eliminating the
unnecessary risk of injury to those individuals who were playing.
 Defendant fails to warn the persons in context of risk of injury who were playing the
game.
In case defendant, counsel stated various grounds for proving that defendant does not own any
duty of care towards the plaintiff, and these grounds were stated below:
 In context of 1982 game which was subject to the claim made by plaintiff, it was played
as part of the Sydney grade competition, and during that period this competition was
controlled by the Sydney Rugby Union (SRU). That the competition was organized by
the SRU, and in no manner it exercise control over those individuals who played for
individual clubs in that competition.
 That neither the SRU and nor the NSWRU did not had power to direct or compel the
plaintiff to take part in the match in which plaintiff get injury.
 NSWRU only manage the coaching and development of the NSW state team, and it had
no involvement in running the competitions.
 Both SRU and NSWRU do not have the ability to control or direct the individual clubs
who were appointed as coaches for their teams.
 Both SRU and NSWRU do not exercise any control in context of refereeing of individual
matches, because referees were appointed by the Sydney Rugby Referees Association.

Human Resource management 5
 Both NSWRU and SRU do not exercise any power in terms of amending the laws related
to the game, and at that time when they were the administrator of the rugby game
organize any such game in Australia which does not complied with the laws of rugby
football as propagated by the International Rugby Football Board (The Queensland Law
Handbook, 2016).
Decision of the Court:
In this case, court used the reasonableness in form of determining the factor for the duty of care.
Court recognized that this game includes the risk of broken necks which were serious in nature,
and it also includes some minor risks also such as tackling, scrummaging, rucking and mauling.
These risks related to sport were commonly seen as dangerous in the society and injuries related
to this were serious in nature.
Court also determine the duty of NSWRU towards those who were playing rugby, and for this
purpose judge stated that it was really difficult to characterize the duties such as determination of
duty in context of making the changes in the rule and duty of inform to the individual about the
risk related to catastrophic injury. It was not possible to make any difference between what was
considered as risk in lieu of serious injury and risks of catastrophic injury.
While taking the decision of this case, judges consider the ruling of the Agar v Hyde’ (2001) 9
TLJ 131, as facts of this case were almost similar to the present case. It was not possible to use
the reference because it was impossible to find an objective standard for measuring the level of
risk which was involved in the inherently dangerous body contact for considering what was
acceptable. In Agar case, High Court states the difference and recognize under common law, as
in context of positive acts which cause damage and failure to act which cause damage does not
impose any duty of care on person to take action in those situation where no positive action
conduct of that person create risk of injury for another person (High Court of Australia, 2000).
In this case, Callinan J stated that any power and functions of the appellants were voluntary in
nature and does not deals with the duty own to the respondents, and for this purpose udge refer
the decision given by Gaudron J in Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee
[1999] HCA 59; (1999) 200 CLR 1. In this case, judge stated that liability will arise in that

Human Resource management 6
situation only when failure to act in any situation relates with the duty to act, and no such duty
was imposed on NSWRU in this context (High Court of Australia, 1999).
Judge further stated that even in case NSWRU holds the power to made amendments in the rules
related to the game then also there was no duty of care on part of the defendant.
Analysis of Court’s decision:
As stated above, I will present this case from point of view of the defendant, and in this case was
won by the defendant. As this section states the reasons because of which defendant side was
stronger and the reasons because which judges agreed with the arguments of the defendant.
There were number of reasons which made the defendant side stronger and on the basis of these
grounds Court denied the duty of care on part of defendant:
 This Sport was played by the freely consenting adults, and it was completely against to
the notion of individual autonomy for imposing the legal duty on the rule-making body
for the purpose of making the sport safer.
 Content related to the duty was problematic in that manner as it cause issue in defining
the unnecessary risk in the most risky activity.
 As alleged duty made the foreign defendant obligatory to take positive action for the
purpose of protecting the plaintiff, and no such relationship was exist between the
plaintiff and defendant which impose duties under tort of negligence on the defendant.
 NSWRU was not in the position to change the rules related to the game in context of
making the sport safer (Austlii, n.d.).
However, on part of plaintiff it can be said that plaintiff relied on very weak evidences such as
those material which allowed the NSWRU different powers like Memorandum and Articles of
Association of the NSWRU. They depend on the provision which support the submission that
defendant was in the position to ensure that the rules related to the game were adopted and they
also had power to punish those who fails to comply with the adopted rules. It can be said that
these evidence were no sufficient to prove such big claim. Plaintiff also failed to provide the
evidence to argue with the defendant’s affidavit evidence in lieu of lack of practical control
related to the rules of the game.

Human Resource management 7
Conclusion:
After considering the facts of the case, it can be said that decision taken by the Court was
effective in nature and it can be considered as the historical decision because it provide rulings to
the injuries occurred in games. In this case, high Court stated that the board does not own any
duty of care because it was too remote on part of the NSW administration of the game. Court
further stated that, danger was generally part of the attraction for players and decision of the
plaintiff to participate in the game was free decision because of which responsibility of the injury
was autonomy.

Human Resource management 8
References:
Agar v Hyde’ (2001) 9 TLJ 131.
Austlii, (2002). Peter Joseph Haylen vs. NSW rugby union Ltd 2002. Available at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2002/114.html?
stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title%28Peter%20Joseph%20Haylen%20near%20New%20South
%20Wales%20Rugby%20Union%20%29. Accessed on 14th May 2018.
Austlii. Indeterminacy: the uncertainty principle of negligence. Available at:
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUConstrLawNlr/2006/35.pdf. Accessed on 14th May
2018.
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee [1999] HCA 59; (1999) 200 CLR 1.
ESPN, (2002). Player to sue for 'millions'. Available at:
http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/40474.html. Accessed on 14th May 2018.
High Court of Australia, (1999). Crimmins v Stevedoring Committee [1999] HCA 59; 200 CLR
1; 167 ALR 1; 74 ALJR 1 (10 November 1999). Available at: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/59.html. Accessed on 14th May 2018.
High Court of Australia, (2000). Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; 201 CLR 552; 173 ALR 665; 74
ALJR 1219 (3 August 2000). Available at:
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2000/41.html. Accessed on 14th
May 2018.
Peter Joseph Haylen vs. NSW rugby union Ltd 2002.
The Queensland Law Handbook, (2016). Sports and Duty of care. Available at:
https://queenslandlawhandbook.org.au/the-queensland-law-handbook/health-and-wellbeing/
sport/sport-and-duty-of-care/. Accessed on 14th May 2018.