Leading compensation lawyer Peter Carter has issued a serious warning to rugby league authorities, suggesting that several organisations could face legal consequences over the incident that has sidelined Melbourne Storm forward Eliesa Katoa for the entire 2026 season. His comments come as scrutiny intensifies around how the young Tongan international was permitted to continue playing despite suffering multiple head knocks in a short period.
Katoa’s situation has become a sobering example of the real dangers associated with head trauma in rugby league. The Dally M Second Rower of the Year suffered repeated concussive blows before and during Tonga’s clash against New Zealand in November, leading to alarming medical complications that required urgent intervention. What has unfolded since has raised troubling questions about protocols, oversight, and duty of care across international rugby league structures.
The Melbourne Storm confirmed earlier this year that Katoa would miss the entire 2026 season as he continues his recovery. The 24-year-old required surgery to relieve pressure on his brain, spending two weeks in an Auckland hospital before being cleared to return to Melbourne. Even now, he remains under the ongoing supervision of medical specialists.
Reports indicate that Katoa endured three significant head knocks across a 90-minute window, including one before kick-off when he collided badly with teammate Lehi Hopoate during warm-up. Shockingly, despite broadcast footage clearly showing the heavy contact, Tonga’s medical team insisted they never saw the vision before allowing him to take the field. His condition deteriorated progressively throughout the match, intensifying the debate over whether sufficient immediate action was taken.
For Carter, the implications are clear. In his view, accountability for what happened to Katoa could extend across several governing bodies.
“Liability falls first on the Tongan (team) and its national league organisation,” Carter said, noting that any entity responsible for player safety could be exposed to legal scrutiny. Carter is currently representing former Manly prop Lloyd Perrett in separate proceedings against the Sea Eagles, claiming an “outlandish training regime” ended Perrett’s career.
Carter added that the issue reaches beyond Tonga’s own organisation, suggesting that even the NRL may not be shielded from responsibility. “The NRL, could also be potentially liable since employers have a duty to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risks of injury to their employees.”
He further noted that responsibility may stretch beyond direct employers or team officials. “There may be liability (on) the part of any association that played a role in the championship’s oversight, funding or promotion.”
This statement casts a shadow over the NRL’s role in the Pacific Championships, which the governing body helped promote and organise. Questions have arisen about why no independent medical officer was appointed to oversee the series, especially considering the increased global focus on concussion protocols in professional sport. With players representing their nations in what is effectively an international extension of their club duties, clarity around accountability has become a pressing issue.
Earlier this week, the NRL released the findings of its investigation into the matter, proposing significant sanctions for key Tongan officials involved in the decision-making on game day. The recommendation includes suspending the team’s head doctor, assistant doctor, and head trainer from all rugby league-related activities for 24 months. The findings acknowledge failures in the handling of Katoa’s injuries and the broader responsibility to ensure safe participation.
Despite the severity of his ordeal, Katoa has maintained a gracious stance, recently indicating that he holds no resentment toward those involved. However, Carter emphasised that personal feelings do not limit the legal avenues available to him should he choose to pursue them.
“The sporting field is a professional footballer’s workplace and the employer’s duty of care extends to this realm,” he said.
Carter stressed that any liability would hinge on whether medical evidence confirms that allowing Katoa to continue playing after the initial head knock worsened his condition. “Liability also depends on evidence supporting the contention that being allowed to play after the head knock was medically considered to have worsened Katoa’s condition.”
As concussion awareness grows worldwide, rugby league finds itself under increasing pressure to evolve. This case has become a stark reminder that even with enhanced rules and head-injury assessments, gaps still exist in safeguarding players.
“Rugby league is an intensely physical sport but player safety always has to come first,” Carter said. “NRL and other sports administrators need to heed the lessons of this case and ensure they never compromise on player safety.”
Katoa’s situation has sparked discussion around international matches, where combined oversight from various organisations can sometimes blur lines of responsibility. Fans, players, and advocates have questioned whether the protective standards in international fixtures adequately match those enforced in domestic leagues like the NRL. Furthermore, the lack of independent medical adjudication during tournaments has emerged as a potential structural flaw, one that rugby league may now be compelled to address.
The case also highlights broader legal implications for contact sports. As awareness continues to grow around chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and lasting cognitive impairment linked to repeated head trauma, governing bodies worldwide face increasing scrutiny regarding their duty of care obligations. In professional codes, where athletes’ careers and long-term health are at stake, expectations around safety protocols have never been higher.
For the Storm, the priority remains Katoa’s wellbeing. The club has assured fans that the forward is receiving world-class medical support as he continues his rehabilitation. But beyond his individual journey, the incident has sparked crucial conversations about systemic responsibility—conversations that Carter’s comments have amplified.
If the findings from the NRL investigation lead to further action, it may set a precedent for how future incidents involving head trauma are evaluated. With legal experts like Carter publicly analysing the shortcomings of current systems, it is increasingly likely that rugby league bodies will be pushed toward more rigorous, centralised medical oversight in international competitions.
For now, the sport waits to see whether Katoa or others take the next step legally. Whatever unfolds next, the incident stands as a sobering reminder of the inherent risks of rugby league and the serious obligation organisations carry to minimise them.
