Sports Law Update: Fulham Football Club v Jones [2022] EWHC 1108 (QB)

• Published date: 31 May 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment, Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Sport
• Law Firm: 1 Chancery Lane
• Author: Anirudh Mandagere

Sports injuries present a challenge to personal injury practitioners. The difficulties of establishing liability were recently examined by Mr. Justice Lane in the High Court judgment of Fulham Football Club v Jones [2022] EWHC 1108 (QB). This article set out the facts of the case, the approaches taken by the Recorder and the High Court, and finally provides concluding thoughts on the impact of this judgment.

The Facts

On 10^th December 2016, a football match took place between the under 18 teams of Fulham Football Club and Swansea City Football Club. Towards the end of the first half of the match, Mr. Harris tackled Mr. Jones from his side. Mr. Jones suffered a serious injury to his right ankle, which ended his professional footballing career. Before the issuing of the claim, no complaint had been made in respect of tackle. Further, there had been no investigation, nor was any disciplinary action enforced.

At the hearing, both parties instructed expert witnesses. Namely, Mr. Hackett for the Claimant and Mr. Cumming for the Defendant.

Judgment of the Recorder

Recorder Craven highlighted the following rules of football from the expert report of Mr. Hackett:

1. Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent.
2. A player, a substitute or substituted player who commits [serious foul play] is sent off.

In paragraph 56 of his judgment, he noted that breach of the rules is not determinative of liability, but that actual serious foul play which endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality would very likely amount to negligence. He found that Mr. Harris tackled the Claimant by launching himself off the ground, such that he would not have 'control over his flight except to some extent being able to move where his legs went' [45]. This was a reckless manoeuvre involving excessive force which he should have realised would bring Mr. Jones down.

This was a serious error of judgement. He noted that the referee did not penalise Mr. Harris for a foul, but found that it did not negative his views about what actually happened. With respect to the expert evidence, the Recorder stated that he accepted the Claimant's expert evidence, and rejected the evidence of the Defendant.

Judgment of the High Court

Mr. Justice Lane allowed the appeal on all four grounds outlined by the Defendant.

Ground 1: The Recorder's Self-Direction

The appellant submitted that it was wrong for the recorder to give...