The case involves Jo-Ann Lim, a synchronized swimmer, appealing the decision by Synchronised Swimming Australia Inc. (SSAI) to nominate Amber-Rose Stackpole for the 2016 Olympic Games. The appeal was heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with Justice Annabelle Bennett as the sole arbitrator. The central issue was whether SSAI's nomination process adhered to legal standards and natural justice, particularly regarding citizenship requirements under FINA rules. Lim, who obtained Australian citizenship in April 2015, contested Stackpole's nomination, as Stackpole only became a citizen in March 2016, raising questions about her eligibility. However, Stackpole received FINA approval for a change of sport nationality in April 2016, just before the Olympics. The CAS examined whether SSAI's nomination criteria were correctly interpreted and applied, noting that nomination does not guarantee participation, as eligibility to compete depends on FINA's rules. The tribunal also considered whether Lim was denied procedural fairness, concluding that the appeal process provided a sufficient opportunity for review, eliminating any practical unfairness. The CAS emphasized its role was to assess legal errors and ensure natural justice, not to re-evaluate the merits of SSAI's decision.
The dispute centered on the distinction between nomination for selection, selection, and actual participation in the Olympics. FINA rules mandate that athletes must be citizens of the country they represent, with naturalized citizens required to have lived there for at least one year before competition. The Nomination Criteria, outlined in clause 8 of the By-Law, stipulated that selection is conditional on the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) confirming compliance with both Nomination and Selection Criteria. The process was complicated by the late finalization of the Nomination Criteria, approved only on the day of the Selection Trials, though athletes had been informed of the draft policy beforehand. Lim argued that Stackpole was ineligible because she was not "selected to compete" in national or international competitions as a member of the National Squad before her citizenship was confirmed. SSAI countered that the criteria were applied at the time of nomination to the AOC, by which point Stackpole had obtained citizenship. The Appeals Tribunal upheld SSAI's decision, finding no error in the interpretation of the Nomination Criteria regarding Stackpole's eligibility.
Lim also raised concerns about procedural fairness, arguing that the Appeals Tribunal's refusal to accept her written submissions in advance disadvantaged her. While the tribunal is required to observe natural justice, the handling of her submissions—forwarded only to the chair and not all members—was seen as unfair. Although Lim presented her case orally during the hearing, the tribunal's rejection of her written submissions before delivering its decision was deemed unjust. The CAS partially upheld Lim's appeal, acknowledging the denial of natural justice but maintaining the rest of the Appeals Tribunal's decision, as the appeal process itself provided a reconsideration of the issues. Ultimately, the CAS upheld SSAI's nomination of Stackpole, finding no legal error or breach of natural justice. The decision clarified the separation between nomination and competition eligibility, affirming that FINA's rules govern participation, not nomination. The case underscores the importance of clear criteria and procedural fairness in athlete selection processes.