The case involves an appeal by Melissa Martin, a top Australian squash player, against her non-selection for the 2006 Commonwealth Games team by Squash Australia. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined whether the Selection Committee adhered to the stipulated criteria. The panel, comprising Justice Tricia Kavanagh, Justice Henric Nicholas, and Alan John Sullivan QC, emphasized that expert selection committees are not required to provide exhaustive reasons for their decisions, provided they follow the criteria and act reasonably. The case centered on the interpretation of Clause 20 of Regulation 24, which outlined the selection criteria, particularly the balance between singles (Criterion 1) and doubles (Criterion 2) performances. Martin argued that the Committee misapplied the criteria by overemphasizing doubles performances, while Squash Australia maintained that both criteria were considered holistically to maximize medal prospects, given the Games' medal distribution favoring doubles. The panel noted that the Selection Committee's unanimous decision, later upheld by Squash Australia's Appeal Committee, was based on expert judgment and comprehensive player evaluations. Martin's initial appeal to the Appeal Committee was unsuccessful, and with the National Sports Disputes Centre defunct, the parties agreed to CAS's jurisdiction. The panel confirmed this agreement was binding, citing contractual principles. The Grinham sisters, ranked third and fourth globally in singles, were automatic selections, leaving the remaining spots to be contested by Martin, Kasey Brown, Dianne Desira, and Amelia Pittock. The Committee prioritized doubles performance for these spots, selecting Pittock as the third-best doubles player. Martin challenged this, arguing Criterion 2 should only apply post-selection, but the panel rejected this, finding the natural interpretation of Clause 20 supported concurrent consideration of both criteria. The panel upheld the Selectors' discretion to weigh factors as they saw fit, referencing precedents like Australian Football League v. Carlton Football Club Limited, which affirmed the limited grounds for overturning expert decisions. The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to Squash Australia, reinforcing the autonomy of selection committees in sports. The case highlights the complexities of interpreting selection criteria and the deference given to expert bodies in sports dispute resolution.