Kennedy v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel

Case [2015] FCA 411

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kennedy v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel [2015] FCA 411

Citation: Kennedy v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel [2015] FCA 411
Appeal from: TVDB v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel [2014] AATA 967
Parties: MARTIN KENNEDY v ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATION PANEL and CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY
File number: NSD 68 of 2015
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment:

5 May 2015
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – discontinuance of appeal – appropriate rule
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 26.12, 33.31
Date of hearing: In chambers
Date of last submissions: 30 April 2015
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 10
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Higgins
Solicitor for the Applicant: Unsworth Legal
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr PM Knowles
Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 68 of 2015
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

MARTIN KENNEDY
Applicant
AND:

ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATION PANEL
First Respondent

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

ROBERTSON J

DATE:

5 MAY 2015

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This was an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 31 December 2014. The notice of appeal to the Federal Court was filed on 29 January 2015.

  2. An interlocutory application that the name of the applicant not be published was also filed on 29 January 2015.

  3. The first case management hearing was held on 18 February 2015.

  4. A supplementary notice of appeal was provided on 26 February 2015.

  5. On 3 March 2015 the interlocutory application came on for hearing but was adjourned, part heard, on the applicant’s application, to 13 March 2015. I made an order that the applicant file and serve on the respondents any further evidence in support of his interlocutory application by 9 March 2015.

  6. However, on 11 March 2015 I made orders by consent that the applicant's interlocutory application filed on 29 January 2015 be dismissed and that the costs of the interlocutory application be costs in the cause.

  7. On 3 March 2015 I also made orders so that the appeal could be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed on or after 23 June 2015, together with consequential orders.

  8. On 30 April 2015 the applicant filed a notice discontinuing the whole of the proceeding by consent and on the basis that, by consent, each party bears their own costs of the proceeding. Notwithstanding the references in that notice of discontinuance to r 26.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), I will treat that notice as having been filed under r 33.31 which is the specific rule dealing with appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

  9. Under r 33.31(1)(a), in the present circumstances, before the hearing of the appeal, the Court’s leave is not required and by r 33.31(2) the notice of discontinuance has the effect of an order of the Court dismissing the applicant’s appeal.

  10. This proceeding is therefore now concluded.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson.

Associate:

Dated:        5 May 2015

Details
AGLC
Kennedy v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel [2015] FCA 411
Case
[2015] FCA 411
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kennedy v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel involved a dispute between the appellant, an athlete, and the respondent, the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel, regarding a doping violation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The athlete appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had dismissed his challenge to a decision by the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel.

The legal issues in the case centred around the procedures and rules governing appeals from decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the appeal should be dismissed on the basis that it was no longer in the public interest to proceed with the appeal, in accordance with the appropriate court rules. The court also had to consider whether the appeal was an abuse of process, and whether there were any grounds for discontinuing the appeal.

In its decision, the court held that the appeal was properly brought within the time limits set out in the relevant court rules. However, the court also found that the appeal had been discontinued in accordance with the appropriate rule, and that it was in the public interest to dismiss the appeal. The court noted that the athlete had not demonstrated any reasonable prospects of success on the merits of the appeal, and that there were no other compelling reasons to proceed with the appeal. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed, and made an order to that effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.