Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel v XZTT (No 2) [2013] FCAFC 135

Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel v XZTT (No 2) [2013] FCAFC 135

The principles of open justice prevail, and there is no compelling reason to maintain the non-publication order regarding the Athlete's identity, as the interests of the administration of justice have not been shown to warrant departure from open proceedings. The Panel succeeded on both grounds of appeal, and there are no special circumstances warranting departure from the usual order as to costs; therefore, the Athlete is ordered to pay the Panel's costs. However, due to the complexity of the statutory scheme and its prior lack of judicial consideration, and the fact that Parliament amended the scheme after the AAT decision, a costs certificate is granted to the Athlete under s 6(1) of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Determination of Costs and Non Publication Order Following Appeal From AAT
Outcome
Non-publication order discharged; respondent/cross-claimant ordered to pay applicant/cross-respondent's costs; costs certificate granted to respondent/cross-claimant.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'federal Appeal Costs Certificates']
['administrative Law' 'sports Law'] ['costs Discretion' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'federal Appeal Costs Certificates']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Determination of Costs and Non Publication Order Following Appeal From AAT

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the non-publication order in respect of the athlete's identity should remain in force" "Whether the respondent athlete should be ordered to pay the Panel's costs of the appeal" 'Whether a costs certificate should be granted to the respondent athlete']

Ratio Decidendi

The principles of open justice prevail, and there is no compelling reason to maintain the non-publication order regarding the Athlete's identity, as the interests of the administration of justice have not been shown to warrant departure from open proceedings. The Panel succeeded on both grounds of appeal, and there are no special circumstances warranting departure from the usual order as to costs; therefore, the Athlete is ordered to pay the Panel's costs. However, due to the complexity of the statutory scheme and its prior lack of judicial consideration, and the fact that Parliament amended the scheme after the AAT decision, a costs certificate is granted to the Athlete under s 6(1) of...

Court Disposition

Non-publication order discharged; respondent/cross-claimant ordered to pay applicant/cross-respondent's costs; costs certificate granted to respondent/cross-claimant.

Orders

  • ['The non-publication order made by the Court on 14 March 2013 pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) be discharged.' "The respondent/cross-claimant pay the applicant/cross-respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed." 'A certificate be granted to the respondent/cross-claimant pursuant...