The case revolves around a dispute between the Fiji Association of Sports and National Olympic Committee (FASANOC) and the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) concerning Fiji's suspension from the Commonwealth and its subsequent exclusion from the 2010 Commonwealth Games. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) presided over the arbitration, with a panel comprising Sir Oliver Popplewell, Michael J. Beloff QC, and Timothy J. Castle. The central issue was whether Fiji, following its full suspension from the Commonwealth due to a military coup and refusal to commit to democratic elections, retained its status as a "Commonwealth Country" under the CGF Constitution, thereby affecting its eligibility to participate in the Games. FASA NOC argued that suspension did not equate to expulsion and that Fiji should still be considered a Commonwealth Country for the purposes of the Games. The CGF, however, maintained that full suspension stripped Fiji of its membership rights, including participation in the Games. The panel examined the CGF Constitution, particularly Articles 4, 5, 7, 24(1), and 31, which outline eligibility and non-discrimination principles. It concluded that a full suspension nullified Fiji's status as a Commonwealth Country under CGF rules, rendering its athletes ineligible for the Games. The decision emphasized that the CGF's rules did not allow for a lenient interpretation to permit participation, as the suspension was a clear denial of rights. The panel also dismissed claims of political discrimination against athletes, stating that the CGF's actions were based on Fiji's suspension from the Commonwealth, not political bias. The arbitration proceeded without a hearing, as the panel deemed the dispute a matter of legal interpretation based on agreed facts, with English law governing the proceedings as stipulated by the CGF Constitution. The final award upheld the CGF's decision, confirming that Fiji's suspension barred its athletes from competing in the 2010 Commonwealth Games. The ruling also addressed the allocation of costs, with the CAS Office responsible for determining arbitration expenses, including fees for arbitrators, witnesses, and administrative costs. The panel considered the unique circumstances of the case, including the principle-based nature of the dispute and the disparity in resources between the parties, and decided that arbitration costs would be shared equally between FASA NOC and the CGF, with each party bearing its own legal fees. The CAS dismissed FASA NOC's claim for relief, upheld the equal sharing of arbitration costs, and ruled that each party would cover its own legal expenses. The case highlights the intersection of sports governance and political developments, underscoring the strict adherence to constitutional rules in such contexts and the binding nature of CAS rulings.