Hird v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority

In the case of Hird v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, the appellant, Mr. Hird, sought an expedited hearing of his appeal against the dismissal of his judicial review proceedings. The appeal involved challenging the lawfulness of the investigation by the CEO of ASADA and the AFL, which had led to notices of possible anti-doping rule violations being issued to the 34 Players. The primary judge had previously dismissed the judicial review proceedings with costs, and Mr. Hird now sought an expedited hearing of his appeal. The court had to determine whether the interests of justice favoured an expedited hearing of the appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether an order for an expedited hearing should be granted, considering the principles governing such applications and the specific circumstances of the case. The court had to consider whether Mr. Hird would suffer significant practical disadvantage if the hearing did not take place at the earliest convenient time, and whether there was a serious detriment to good public administration or to the interests of others not party to the appeal. The court also needed to balance the interests of Mr. Hird against the interests of other litigants in other cases.

The court found that the interests of justice did favour an expedited hearing of the appeal. Factors considered included the potential for significant practical disadvantage to Mr. Hird if the hearing was not expedited, and the implications of the appeal for the proper administration of the law. The court granted the application for an expedited hearing and listed the appeal for hearing before the Full Court in Melbourne on 10 November 2014. The court also set out detailed directions for the preparation and filing of appeal materials, including timelines for filing and serving notices, indexes, outlines of submissions, and appeal books.

The final orders included the expedited hearing of the appeal, setting specific timelines for the preparation and filing of appeal materials, and reserving costs of the interlocutory application. The appeal was to be heard by the Full Court in Melbourne, with an estimated hearing duration of one day.