The compensation ruling that could permanently alter the face of sport

Rugby in crisis after judge awards 'substantial' damages to paralysed player over negligence of amateur referee

The future of amateur sport in Britain looked uncertain yesterday after a Welsh rugby player became the first non-professional sportsman to win his claim for damages against a referee who had failed to protect him during a match.

The case could cost governing bodies hundreds of millions of pounds in insurance and put refereeing on a permanent professional footing.

Richard Vowles, 29, a front-row forward, was paralysed for life by an injury in the final seconds of a derby between Llanharan and Tondu in January 1998 when the scrum collapsed. The High Court in London found the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) was to blame for the accident because it was vicariously liable for the referee's negligence.

The decision builds on a growing trend in professional sport in which players resort to the courts to win compensation for their injuries.

But the judgment is the first in which a referee in an adult amateur sport has been found negligent for injuries suffered by a player. The WRU, which is considering an appeal, said the ruling could lead to similar actions and change the face of amateur rugby.

Sports lawyers said that in future, clubs and governing bodies would have to consider the cost of indemnifying referees before allowing a game to take place. Those who could not afford the insurance premium risked being made bankrupt.

Daniel Marks, a sports law expert at the London solicitors Finers Stephens Innocent, said that videotaping of matches would become common so that referees could protect themselves from allegations of negligence. But he also expected the standards of refereeing to improve.

John Mackle, of the Leeds law firm McCormicks, which has won a number of personal injury cases in amateur sport, said the decision followed "a line of cases where the sport's governing body has been held responsible for the safety of the players or participants".

Both lawyers said the brain damage suffered by the boxer Michael Watson and his claim for negligence against the British Board of Boxing Control had forced the governing body into bankruptcy.

Mr Justice Morland, sitting in London, said in his judgment that the match referee, David Evans, was in breach of his duty to take reasonable care for the safety of the front row in failing to order non-contested scrums. The crucial question was how and why the two front rows failed to engage properly and whether the lack of prop technique of the Llanharan pack leader, Christopher Jones, who stood in for the injured loose-head prop, was a material cause.

He rejected the argument that the imposition of a duty of care on an amateur referee would discourage amateur referees, officials and players from taking part in rugby.

He also said he did not consider it logical to draw a distinction between amateur and professional rugby. In the professional game, a front-row forward was likely to be better trained, fitter and have more specialist technique than his amateur counterpart.

Teams in the professional game would also have available sufficient substitutes to replace a front-row forward who was injured or sent off.

The judge also considered that the risk of very serious spinal and neck injuries to front-row forwards was more likely to occur in the amateur game, albeit extremely infrequently: "In my judgment, when rugby is funded not only by gate receipts but also by lucrative television contracts, I can see no reason why the Welsh Rugby Union should not insure itself and its referees against claims and the risk of a finding of a breach of duty by a referee where the threshold of liability is a high one which will not easily be crossed."

Glanmor Griffiths, the WRU chairman, said after the case: "We are concerned about the judgment which has today been delivered ... and the implications of the decision for the game of rugby union.

"Each year the union invests heavily in player, coach and referee education and puts the safety of players at all levels as a number one priority. The union can boast some of the highest standards of refereeing in the world game."

Mr Vowles said: "I am just glad to get it out of the way. This is going to make a big difference to my life. This ruling is going to make the game safer for everybody else."

His lawyers said the decision was of "great significance for the game of rugby union in particular and contact sports in general". Phillip Griffith, his solicitor, said: "While money can never compensate for the tragic injuries he suffered at such a young age, it will make life a little easier for him.

"The decision is also very significant for the game of rugby generally ... [it] extends the principle that referees owe a duty of care to players in a rugby match to adults, whether amateur or professional."

But the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers said the ruling would not open any floodgates. A spokesman said: "The case simply reinforces the position understood by everyone in the game of rugby, which is that the referee is in control of the rules and the rules were brought in specifically because there is a serious risk of neck injury if a scrum is not managed properly."

Referees who adhered to the health and safety rules of their sport had nothing to fear from the justice system.

A new hearing will decide Mr Vowles's damages, which are expected to be more than £1m.