ASADA v 34 Players and One Support Person (No 2)

In the case of ASADA v 34 Players and One Support Person (No 2), the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) sought leave to issue subpoenas under the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 to obtain documents from the defendants, which included 34 athletes and a support person, in the context of anti-doping investigations. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary focus of the court was whether ASADA should bear the costs of the leave hearing and, if so, the basis upon which these costs should be calculated. The defendants argued that ASADA should not be granted leave to subpoena unless it paid the costs of the leave hearing.

The court had to determine whether ASADA should be required to pay the costs of the leave hearing and, if so, the appropriate basis for calculating those costs. The relevant legal provisions included the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, O 42.11, and the Supreme Court (Chapter II Arbitration Amendment) Rules 2014, r 9.14(8). The court found that it was appropriate to order ASADA to pay the costs of the leave hearing, given the public interest in ensuring that ASADA had the necessary resources to pursue its anti-doping investigations. The court also ruled that the costs should be calculated on the standard basis, as per the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005.

The court's reasoning was that the public interest in ASADA's anti-doping investigations outweighed any potential financial burden on ASADA. The court noted that ASADA's role in protecting the integrity of sports in Australia was of significant importance, and thus, it was appropriate to require ASADA to bear the costs of the leave hearing. The court further clarified that the costs should be calculated in accordance with the standard basis, ensuring that the defendants were not unduly prejudiced by the need to incur legal expenses. The court's decision was thus a balance between the need for ASADA to effectively conduct its investigations and the principle of fairness in the allocation of costs.