The Appellant, an athlete, contested her non-nomination by the Respondent, the National Sporting Body, to the Australian team for the 2024 Paris Olympic Games. Another athlete nominated to the Australian team by the Respondent was an Affected Party.
The Appellant alleged that the Respondent failed to follow its own Nomination Criteria and was in error to not nominate the Appellant. The decision was appealed pursuant to clause 9.6(c) of AOC Olympic Team Nomination and Selection By-Law, on the grounds that the Nomination Criteria were not properly applied by the Respondent and the decision was affected by actual bias.
The Tribunal considered the Automatic Nomination and Discretionary Nomination Clauses of the Nomination Criteria and concluded that when Australia qualified a team to the Qualification Event, the Automatic Nomination Clauses were engaged. These clauses state that the Respondent ‘will nominate eligible athletes of each gender who achieve a finishing position of 1 or 2 in the singles event for their gender’ at the Qualification Event to the AOC for selection. The Appellant finished in second place at the Qualification Event.
The Tribunal concluded that the Nomination Criteria was explicit in its wording in relation to nominations and cannot be read in any other way. The express intent of the Automatic Nomination Clauses cannot be overridden by a discretionary nomination and in accordance with this, the Respondent must nominate the Appellant due to her placing at the Qualification Event.
The Tribunal found that there was no bias in the decision.
The appeal was upheld. The nomination decision was referred back to the Respondent to be reconsidered.