The case revolves around Luke Michael, an Australian flatwater kayak paddler, who appealed Australian Canoeing's decision not to nominate him for the 2008 Olympic Games. The central issue was whether the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, given that Michael missed the 48-hour deadline for filing an appeal as stipulated by the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) By-Law. The decision not to nominate Michael was communicated via email at 10:01 AM on May 21, 2008, making the appeal deadline 10:00 AM on May 23, 2008. However, Michael submitted his written notice of appeal at 2:44 PM on May 23, missing the deadline by four and a half hours.
Michael argued that the 48-hour rule did not apply, claiming his appeal was a "subsequent appeal" under clause 11.1(2) of the AOC By-Law, which he believed should follow the 21-day deadline set by Rule 49 of the CAS Code. He also contended that there was a contractual variation extending his deadline to 5:00 PM on May 23, though no evidence supported this claim. Australian Canoeing countered that the appeal was not a "subsequent appeal" because it originated from a Selection Panel decision, not an Appeals Tribunal decision, and that any contractual variation would require agreement from all parties involved, which was not obtained.
The CAS panel ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to Michael's failure to meet the 48-hour deadline. The panel emphasized that neither clause 11.9 of the AOC By-Law nor Rule 32 of the CAS Code granted the CAS authority to extend this deadline. Since Michael's notice of appeal was submitted late and no valid contractual variation existed, the CAS could not proceed with the case. The decision highlights the strict procedural requirements in sports arbitration and the necessity of adhering to deadlines to maintain jurisdictional validity. The panel's ruling was delivered orally on June 23, 2008, and the written decision, issued on September 29, 2008, formalized the reasons for dismissing the appeal.
Ultimately, the case underscores the importance of timely compliance with procedural rules in sports arbitration, as failure to meet deadlines can result in the loss of appeal rights. The CAS's decision reaffirmed that it has no authority to extend deadlines unilaterally and that contractual variations must be properly evidenced and agreed upon by all relevant parties. The ruling dismissed Michael's appeal, concluding that the CAS lacked jurisdiction due to the procedural lapse.