Vowles v Evans

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent is confined to a wheelchair due to a spinal injury sustained while playing rugby. The First Appellant was the referee of the match during which the injury occurred, and the Second Defendant, Company A, had appointed the First Appellant as referee. On 13 December 2002, Judge Morland ruled in favor of the Respondent against the First Appellant and Company A, holding that the First Appellant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach caused the Respondent's injury. The appellants challenge these findings.

The injury occurred during an amateur rugby match between two second-tier teams on 17 January 1998. Due to last-minute changes in the first teams, the Respondent's team lacked a trained front row replacement player on the bench. The pitch conditions led to a forwards-dominated game with many scrums. After an injury to a front row player, the team chose to have a less experienced player, a flanker, fill the front row position instead of opting for non-contestable scrummages, which would have forfeited league points.

The referee was aware of the lack of a trained replacement and informed the team captain of their options, but did not verify the suitability of the replacement player. The match proceeded until injury time, when the Respondent suffered a serious injury in a scrum, resulting in permanent incomplete tetraplegia.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First Appellant, as an amateur rugby referee, owed a duty of care to the players in the match.
2. Whether the First Appellant breached that duty by permitting an untrained player to participate in the front row without proper inquiry or intervention.
3. Whether the breach of duty caused the Respondent's injury.
4. The appropriate standard of care applicable to an amateur rugby referee.
5. Whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose such a duty and liability on an amateur referee.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• It is not fair, just, or reasonable to impose a duty of care on an amateur referee due to the risk of deterring volunteers from officiating.
• The inherent risks of rugby, especially in the scrum, mean that injuries are foreseeable and unavoidable, and a referee cannot eliminate such risks except by stopping the game.
• The relevant rule (Law 3(12)) is unclear and was reasonably interpreted by the referee to allow a player to be 'tried' in the front row if considered suitably experienced, even if that experience was outside the front row position.
• The referee reasonably relied on the team captain's decision regarding the suitability of the replacement player.
• Prior case law, including a major Australian case, supports the absence of a duty of care on rugby officials in certain contexts.

Respondent's Arguments

• The referee owed a duty of care to the players, including in amateur matches, as it is fair, just, and reasonable to do so.
• The referee breached this duty by failing to make inquiries about the replacement player's suitability and by leaving the decision to the team captain.
• The breach caused the injury because the replacement player’s lack of training and experience contributed materially to the scrum collapse and injury.
• The standard of care requires a referee to exercise reasonable skill and judgment consistent with the referee’s role and the circumstances of the game.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the established three-part test from Caparo Plc. v Dickman to determine the existence of a duty of care, concluding that the referee owed such a duty to the players in an amateur rugby match. The court rejected the appellants’ policy arguments against imposing duty, noting the rarity of such breaches and the feasibility of insurance coverage.

In analyzing the standard of care, the court referred to Bolam, concluding the referee must exercise the skill of an ordinary competent referee at the relevant level, acknowledging that errors of judgment in fast-moving games are inevitable and do not necessarily constitute breach.

The court carefully examined the referee’s conduct in light of Law 3(12) of the Laws of the Game. It found that the referee abdicated his responsibility by leaving the decision to proceed with a less experienced player in the front row to the team captain, without making appropriate inquiries into the player’s suitability. The court emphasized that the law requires the referee to ascertain whether a player is suitably trained or experienced before permitting a trial in the front row.

Regarding causation, the court accepted the trial judge’s findings that the replacement player’s lack of technique and experience materially contributed to the scrum collapse and the Respondent’s injury. Despite some conflicting evidence, the court deferred to the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility and found sufficient evidence to support causation.

The court distinguished the present case from Agar v Hyde, noting the closer relationship between referee and players compared to rule-makers and players, thereby supporting imposition of a duty of care on the referee.

Finally, the court addressed concerns about the impact of imposing liability on amateur referees, concluding that the risk of liability arising from such a breach is very low and unlikely to deter volunteers from officiating.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL, affirming the trial judge’s findings that the First Appellant owed a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to properly enforce the Laws of the Game, and that this breach caused the Respondent’s injury.

The appellants were ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs, subject to detailed assessment.

The court refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

The decision confirms that amateur rugby referees owe a duty of care to players and must exercise reasonable skill in enforcing safety-related rules. While recognizing the inherent risks of rugby, the ruling emphasizes the referee’s role in minimizing avoidable dangers. No new precedent was set beyond confirming and applying established principles to the circumstances of amateur rugby officiating.