The case involves a dispute between professional football player Yaw Hammond and Polis Di-Raja Malaysia FC regarding the termination of his employment contract. Hammond, represented by the Ghana Football Association (GFA), filed a claim with FIFA seeking compensation for benefits under his contract, including personal accident and disability policies, as well as provident fund and social security payments. The club submitted documents signed by Hammond in September 2004, indicating a mutual termination of the contract effective August 15, 2004, with a three-month salary settlement and a waiver of future claims. FIFA rejected Hammond's claim on September 28, 2007, ruling that the termination agreement was valid and binding, thus waiving his rights to further claims. The decision was notified to the GFA on December 18, 2007, and Hammond filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on January 10, 2008.
FIFA argued that the appeal was filed late, as the 21-day deadline under FIFA Statutes began on December 18, 2007, when the decision was notified to the GFA, not when Hammond personally received it on December 23, 2007. The CAS Sole Arbitrator upheld FIFA's position, ruling that notification to the player's representative (the GFA) constituted valid service, and the appeal deadline began on that date. The Arbitrator emphasized the principle of legal certainty, stating that allowing a representative to control the appeal deadline by delaying notification would undermine procedural fairness. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as untimely, and FIFA's decision rejecting Hammond's claims was upheld.
The arbitrator examined the case based on written submissions, as both parties agreed to forgo a hearing. The decision reaffirmed CAS's jurisdiction under FIFA statutes and the CAS Code, applying FIFA regulations and Swiss law. The arbitrator also noted that the Club's late submissions were not considered in the proceedings. The ruling prioritized procedural adherence, stressing the importance of timely appeals and the binding nature of notifications to legal representatives. The case underscores the strict enforcement of deadlines in sports arbitration and the principle that representatives' actions are binding on their clients.
Ultimately, the arbitrator concluded that the appeal was inadmissible due to the missed deadline, as it was filed two days after the January 8, 2008, cutoff. The decision highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal proceedings before CAS and the binding nature of mutual termination agreements in employment contracts. The case serves as a reminder of the consequences of failing to meet procedural deadlines in arbitration.