A Para-Athlete was not nominated by a National Sporting Organisation (NSO) to represent Australia at the 2024 Paralympic Games. He filed an application with the National Sports Tribunal (NST) challenging his non-nomination on the basis that that there were no grounds on which his non-nomination could reasonably be based. Four Interested Parties who the NSO proposed to nominate for the 2024 Paralympic Games were joined to this matter.
The Para-Athlete made submissions comparing the performances of two of the Interested Parties to his own and the relevant Nomination Policy, arguing that he had a greater capacity to achieve the aims of the policy given his current world ranking, previous major championship record, his age, and his plan to continue well beyond 2028. The NSO submitted that the evidence showed that its selection committee, comprised of an independent panel of experts, armed with ample data about each of the eligible athletes' performance, appropriately considered and applied the relevant Nomination Policy and had cogent reasons for nominating each of the athletes they did.
The NST found that the NSO’s decision-making process was not unreasonable to the extent that there were no substantive grounds on which to base it. Rather, the NST accepted that the NSO’s decision not to nominate the Para-Athlete was supported by detailed, cogent and compelling reasons in light of the overarching aims and other requirements of the relevant Nomination Policy. Therefore, the Para-Athlete’s appeal was dismissed.