Jackson Love v Athletics Australia

Mr Love was not nominated by Athletics Australia to represent Australia at the 2024 Paralympic Games. He filed an application with the National Sports Tribunal (NST) challenging his non-nomination on the grounds set out in clauses 1.7(b) and 1.7(c) of Appendix 2 to the Athletics Australia Nomination Policy - 2024 Paralympic Games, Paris, France (AA Nomination Policy). That is, he alleged that Athletics Australia failed to properly apply the nomination criteria set out in the AA Nomination Policy and that there were no grounds on which his non-nomination could reasonably be based.

Five Interested Parties who Athletics Australia proposed to nominate for the 2024 Paralympic Games were joined to this matter. Mr Love made submissions challenging the nomination of three of these Interested Parties. These three Interested Parties endorsed submissions made by Athletics Australia.

Addressing the ground in clause 1.7(b) Athletics Australia relied on the affidavit evidence of the Chair of the Selection Committee which explained the process and the rationale of the AA Selection Committee pertaining generally to all eligible athletes, to each of the Interested Parties and specifically to Mr Love. Regarding the ground in clause 1.7(c), Athletics Australia contended there were cogent and compelling reasons for nominating the Interested Parties and for not nominating Mr Love, and that those reasons were the product of a considered synthesis of the aims and requirements of the AA Nomination Policy, each athlete's relevant performance and the more general consideration relating to athletes' likelihood of achieving a medal winning performance at the Games, or at future Paralympic Games or World Para Athletics.

The NST could not find any procedural impropriety by Athletics Australia pursuant to clause 1.7(b) and rejected that pursuant to clause 1.7(c), Athletics Australia’s decision-making process was unreasonable to the extent that there were no substantive grounds on which to base it. Therefore, the NST dismissed Mr Love’s appeal.