The Appellant is an athlete in a para-sport. The Respondent is the National Sporting Organisation which also serves as the National Federation (NF) for the purposes of Paralympic Games nomination and selection.
The Appellant was not nominated by the Respondent in any of the four quota places available in their sport for the Australian Paralympic Team (Team) to compete in the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games. There were two interested parties who were nominated by the Respondent to the Team and participated in this matter.
The matter was referred to the National Sports Tribunal pursuant to the Paralympics Australia Nomination Appeals Policy which is Schedule 1 of the Paralympic Team Nomination, Selection and Appeals By-Law (By-Law). The Appellant relied on subsection 8(a) and 8(c) of the By-Law which read ‘the Nomination Policy was not properly applied by the NF or Paralympics Australia (PA) with respect to the Appellant’ and ‘there was no material basis on which the NF’s or PA’s decision could be reasonably based’ respectively.
The National Federation Nomination Panel (NFNP), formed by the Respondent to decide on the nomination of athletes according to set criteria, decide the athletes nominated for the quota places. The Appellant relied on two grounds of appeal. The first was that clause 6.3 of the Nomination Criteria was not properly applied because the NFNP overlooked or did not afford fair and sufficient weight to their superior performance during the nomination period, when compared to the performances of the selected athletes, and the second being that the same clause was not properly applied because there was no material basis upon which NFNP’s decision could be reasonably based to nominate other athletes ahead of the Appellant.
The Tribunal considered the discussions of the NFNP as well as the discretion provided to them by clause 6.3. The Tribunal found that the reasoning applied in selecting the nominated athlete for the final place demonstrated a careful and diligent adherence to the secondary objective in clause 2.1 of the Nomination Criteria of selecting athletes who can contribute to medal winning performances at the Games. It could not be said that the NFNP acted in a manner that was irrational, illogical, and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds. The Tribunal therefore considered the grounds of appeal to not have been established.
The appeal was dismissed.