A women's rugby player accused of flattening a smaller opponent and leaving her paralysed from the waist down is being sued for up to £10million at the High Court.

Dani Czernuszka, 34, says Natasha King 'belly-flopped' onto her during a ruck, breaking her spine, in a league match between her team Reading Sirens and Bracknell Ladies in October 2017.

Now paralysed from the waist down, Mrs Czernuszka, from Reading, is suing Ms King for up to £10 million compensation in a legal first for the ladies' game at the High Court in London.

But Ms King, who was not penalised by the match referee for the clash, denies that the tackle was a bad one and suggests that injuries are part and parcel of a contact sport like rugby.

Opening the case yesterday, Robert Weir KC, for Mrs Czernuszka, said a 'beef' had developed between the two women during the game, partly caused by an earlier clash in which Ms King tried to tackle the smaller woman but 'came off worse'.

Mrs Czernuszka, who is five foot three inches tall, was in a 'crouched position' waiting to receive the ball from her team when the other woman put in her tackle, he said.

Ms King took hold of her thigh and 'exerted her full weight downwards onto the head and back of the claimant in the manner of a belly flop such that her full weight pressed down heavily on the claimant's spine'.

Witnesses to the tackle described it variously as like a 'belly-flop' or 'like she was frog splatting on her,' the barrister told Mr Justice Spencer.

He described Mrs Czernuszka's position as 'extremely vulnerable' and noted a size disparity between the two players, telling the court: 'The claimant is slight, Ms King is not'.

'The claimant was thereby pinned in a bent over position by the actions of the first defendant,' he said.

'She sustained an immediate severe spinal fracture and spinal cord injury as a direct result of this tackle.'

Mrs Czernuszka, who now plays para ice hockey for Team GB, was left with no movement in her legs and dependant on a wheelchair.

She was not discharged from hospital until April 2018, six months after the injury, and now faces a lifetime of 'profound' disability.

Mr Weir accepted that Ms King - who was playing fly half - had not set out to injure his client, but claimed she was reckless and 'threw her weight around' on the pitch.

'This was a deliberate act of retaliation, designed to smash the claimant, although without the intention to injure,' he claimed.

From the witness box, Ms Czernuszka herself said she began to feel nervous as the game wore on, particularly after a team mate told her she believed she was 'going to get done'.

She claimed Ms King made her feelings clear when she overheard her say: 'that f*****g number seven, I'm going to break her'.

Mr Weir claimed Ms King had an 'intimidating' reputation, highlighting evidence from another player who said she never played rugby again after Ms King 'clocked her on the head' in a previous game.

'But Ms King's evidence is that she hurt no one in any other game apart from Ms Czernuszka,' he added. 'That's a clear dispute of fact.'

He urged the judge to look at the 'whole context' of the incident, including Ms King's overall behaviour and reputation.

And he told the court: 'there's also the choice language she used on a number of occasions to intimidate Sirens' players, which was followed up by the manner with which she would throw herself about - and indeed threw other people about - on the rugby field in a manner contrary to the spirit of the game'.

But lawyers for Ms King, from Bracknell, Berkshire, insist the tackle she executed was 'perfectly proper' and that Mrs Czernuszka had her hands on the ball when she tackled her.

Her barrister Geoffrey Brown pointed out: 'The tackle was a legitimate one in the eyes of the match official and both RFU officials charged with reviewing such matters.

'The assessment of the referee was that there was nothing wrong with Ms King's tackle.'

The barrister also took issue with claims that Ms King's tackle was an act of retaliation for an earlier clash, describing it as a 'proper and legitimate tackle'.

In Ms King's written defence to the claim, he said that, by playing in the match, Mrs Czernuszka 'impliedly consented to the risk of injury.'

'It was a rugby injury, arising through the risks inherent in playing the game, not through any fault on the part of Ms King,' he said.

'There was nothing wrong with the physical contact used to make the tackle or the first defendant's tackling technique.

'The tackle was not made or executed unreasonably or unlawfully.

'She did not show or have any disregard - let alone reckless disregard - for the claimant's safety.'

The lawyer continued to argue that Ms King did not have a special duty of care because she was heavier than Mrs Czernuszka.

'Ms King did not land on the claimant with excessive force.

'In so far as she was heavier than the claimant, as indeed were a number of other players on the pitch, that would not and did not impose a higher duty of care.

'Still less would it do so when the claimant had shown herself to be a capable and robust player. But, in any event, Ms King did not use her weight inappropriately.'

The trial continues.