Al Shaick and Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority

[2007] AATA 1076

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1076

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q 200600624

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

)

Re

OMAR AL SHAICK

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY

  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal	Deputy President P E Hack SC
Date	20 February 2007

PlaceBrisbane

The Tribunal orders that the application be dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

CATCHWORDS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – powers of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – dismissal of proceedings where applicant fails to comply with direction – application dismissed without proceeding to review decision

REASONS FOR DECISION

20 February 2007    Deputy President P E Hack SC           

1. The applicant, Mr Omar Al Shaick, is, apparently, a boxer. On 6 September 2006 lawyers acting on his behalf lodged an application in the Tribunal seeking a review of a decision of the respondent, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. That decision was one to make an entry on the Authority’s Register of Findings regarding the applicant’s failure to comply with a request for a urine sample for drug testing purposes.

2. The application has been the subject of the ordinary interlocutory processes in this Tribunal. As part of that process a Conference Registrar, on 15 November 2006, made a direction that required the applicant to file and serve a statement of facts and contentions and his evidence by 15 December 2006. The written direction which was forwarded by the Tribunal to the parties following the conference set out the possible consequences of failure to comply with the direction including a reference to the Tribunal’s powers under s 42A(5)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to dismiss a proceeding where an applicant fails to comply with a direction.

3. On 27 November 2006 the Tribunal was notified by the lawyers who had acted for the applicant that they were no longer acting. Thereafter correspondence has been sent by the Tribunal to the address given as the applicant’s address for service. 

4. The direction requiring the applicant to file and serve material was not complied with. Accordingly, on 19 December 2006, a letter was sent to the applicant reminding him of the requirement to lodge material and calling upon him to show cause why action ought not be taken for his non-compliance. No response has been received to that letter. That letter again made clear that the consequence of dismissal for failure to comply with the direction could be taken. No response has been received to that letter and it has not been returned to the Tribunal, leading me to conclude that it has been received by the applicant.

5. On 1 February 2007 as a consequence of the applicant’s failure to comply with the direction the respondent, by letter, requested the Tribunal to exercise its powers under s 42A(5) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act and the matter was listed for hearing today. Notice of the hearing was given to the applicant by letter dated 2 February 2007.

6. The applicant has not attended today, he has filed no material and provided no explanation for his failure to do so.

7. I am accordingly satisfied that the applicant had failed within a reasonable time to comply with the direction made on 15 November 2006 and that I ought dismiss the application without proceeding to review the decision.

8. I will order pursuant to s 42A(5)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act that the application be dismissed.

I certify that the 8 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President P E Hack SC

Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate, Eleanor O’Gorman

Date of Hearing  20 February 2007
Date of Decision   20 February 2007
Applicant did not appear           
Solicitor for the Respondent      Ms S Wallace, Moray & Agnew