The full bench of the Federal Court has unanimously decided to uphold the decision of Immigration Minister Alex Hawke in cancelling the visa of world number one men’s tennis star Novak Djokovic. Chief Justice James Allsop ordered that the reasons of the Court be delivered at a alter date but did stress that the Court was required to rule on the legality of Minister Hawke’s decision rather than its merit. The saga surrounding Djokovic’s vaccination status and the effect it was having on his visa to enter Australia and play lasted for 11 days, primarily due to his initial success having the decision of the Australian Border Force overturned. The reason that the visa was initially cancelled was due to the suspicion that Djokovic (or rather his agent) had given false or misleading information on his Australian traveller declaration upon entering the country. This is considered a serious offence and often results in the cancellation of visas as well as civil penalties. However, the legal challenge brought against this decision by Djokovic was successful, primarily thanks to the knowledgeable and effective work of the Australian legal team from Hall and Wilcox he chose to represent him. Although he lost the dispute in the end, it was a perfect example of the need for solicitors that are going to be in your corner and fight for you in every way possible. For someone who was visiting Australia, such as Djokovic, it was obviously vital that he had legal representation who were able to understand the law and communicate with him in a way that was easy to understand. At Salerno Law, our Litigation team can provide representation that fights for you as fiercely as Djokovic’s advocates did in his matter. We have a wealth of experience in the courtroom helping to win for you and secure the best outcome when issues reach the litigation stage. From civil procedure to dealing with Courts and opponents, the Salerno Law Litigation team is efficient, effective and most importantly, constantly oriented towards your needs as the client. If you need representation in a litigious matter, contact us today or learn more about our litigation practice here. By Josiah Neal

Court of Arbitration for Sport dismisses World Anti-Doping Agency and Sport Integrity Australia appeal. On 26 June 2019, Shayna Jack (Jack) underwent an out-of-competition doping control test. The test sample returned a positive result for a metabolite of Ligandrol. Ligandrol is a Non-Specified Substance and is prohibited both in and out of competition under Class S1.2 of the 2019 World Anti-Doping Code (the Code). On 12 July 2019, Swimming Australia imposed a mandatory provisional suspension in accordance with Article 7.9.1 of the Swimming Australia Limited Anti-Doping Policy 2015 (the Policy). On 7 November 2019, the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel[1] of Swimming Australia determined that Jack had possibly committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation[2] (ADRV). Upon final consideration of the ADRV, a four-year period of ineligibility was imposed under article 10.2 of the Policy, commencing on the date of the provisional suspension. Jack challenged the determination of imposing a four-year period of ineligibility through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Jack submitted that although she was unable to demonstrate how the Prohibited Substance entered her system, the ADRV was not intentional and did not occur due to her recklessness. Consequently, she sought a finding of no significant fault or negligence under clause 10.5 of the Policy. In order to invoke this clause, Jack needed to demonstrate that the ADRV was not intentional and did not occur due to her recklessness. Based on such a finding, Jack sought the period of ineligibility be reduced to two years under clause 10.2 of the Policy. The Sole Arbitrator found, on the balance of probabilities, that Jack did not intentionally or recklessly ingest the prohibited substance and considered that she had discharged her onus of proving that the ADRV was not intentional. Consequently, a reduced ineligibility period of two years was imposed. Both the World Anti-Doping Authority and Sports Integrity Australia (SIA) appealed the decision, primarily seeking to reinstate the four-year period of ineligibility. SIA CEO, David Sharpe, said the decision to appeal was based on the need for clarity and consistency in the application of the Code. A three-member panel of the CAS (the Panel) heard the case de novo[3] and ultimately upheld the sole arbitrator’s decision for different reasons. The Panel found that the sole arbitrator’s reasoning was not in accordance with the Policy and to WADA and SIA’s credit, created a lack of uniformity in the Policy’s application. The Panel analysed Jack’s case through the lens of the Jarrion Lawson[4] (Lawson) meat contamination case. In Lawson, the CAS panel analysed the relevant evidence by beginning with the science, considering the totality of the evidence through the prism of common sense which then may be bolstered by the athlete’s credibility. In Jack’s case, the science was important but not decisive given the absence of the origin of the prohibited substance. The science did not point towards an intentional violation and presented contamination as an option. The totality of the evidence supported Jack’s assertion that the violation was unintentional. Common sense suggested that Jack [...]

Salerno Law regularly provide legal advice in all areas pertaining to sport. This includes providing advice to both professional athletes, sporting clubs and governing bodies on corporate, commercial and contractual matters, advising on personal injury claims suffered during sport, sanctions against players and clubs (including for doping violations) and also appearing for players and clubs in relation to both administrative and judiciary matters. This has included providing legal advice across all of the major Australian sporting codes and also to some of Australia’s most high profile rugby league, AFL and rugby union players and clubs. This expertise in sports law also extends into regional sport, particularly where Salerno Law have an office in Kununurra, Australia. In fact, Kununurra Oval and not the MCG, was last weekend subject to sporting controversy. In this regard, the result of the East Kimberley Football League (EKFL) Grand Final is in limbo due to somewhat unusual and novel circumstances. Following a nail-biting victory to the Ord River Magpies over the Halls Creek Hawks on Saturday, 7 August 2021 by 43pts to 42pts, the Magpies thought that they had tasted premiership success. However, the Hawks considered that one of the of goal umpires had cost them victory in circumstances where goals were deemed behinds and vice versa. These decisions being at the expense of the Hawks. Of particular concern was that a behind was awarded to the Hawks in the dying minutes when some players and spectators considered it was in fact a winning goal. Remarkably, following a complaint from Hawks officials shortly after the final siren, the goal umpire in question was immediately breathalysed and found to be over the legal limit to drive a vehicle. This has resulted in the fate of the EKFL premiership being passed to the Western Australian AFL Football Commission (Commission) to deem whether the result should stand, or whether the game will be required to be replayed (and no doubt being officiated by extremely sober umpires). The Commission will have the benefit of video footage and photographic evidence of the final to help them in their deliberations. The decision of the Commission is being eagerly awaited and with much interest by the people of the East Kimberley (which covers a large part of North West Australia and incredibly is bigger in size than both Greece and Cuba). This is particularly the case where there is extreme passion for AFL in the East Kimberley. Should you require any legal advice or assistance in relation to any sports related matter please contact Salerno Law’s Managing Partner, Cliff Savala. Cliff heads up the Salerno Law Sports Law team and his experience in sports law includes acting for the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, numerous Australian athletes (including professional athletes who have represented Australia), national sporting bodies and professional sporting clubs. Cliff also sits on various sporting judiciary committees including Football Queensland Appeals Tribunal and Gold Coast Rugby League Disciplinary Tribunal and was also recently appointed Honorary Solicitor for Football Gold Coast. By Cliff [...]