The Applicant, a well-known coach of the sport, was issued with a Provisional Action by their State Sporting Organisation. Pursuant to the National Sporting Organisation’s Policy (Sport Policy), the Applicant’s appeal of the Provisional Action was referred to the National Sports Tribunal (NST).
The Sport Policy provides that the NST’s jurisdiction is limited to consideration of whether the State Sporting Organisation’s decision to impose the Provisional Action, which prevented the Applicant from coaching, was proportionate to the perceived risks. The merits of the complaints, forming the basis of the Provisional Action, were not considered.
In summary, the Applicant submitted that the Provisional Action was not proportionate to the perceived risks, and that alternative arrangements should have been implemented. In response, the State Sporting Organisation submitted that the complaints made against the Applicant were of such a serious nature to warrant its imposition. The National Sporting Organisation submitted that the Provisional Action was required to ensure the safety of its sporting community.
The NST Member afforded consideration to the specificities of each parties’ submissions. However, in application of the Sport Policy to the Provisional Action, found that it was proportionate to the perceived risks.
The National Sports Tribunal held the application be dismissed.