The case revolves around a dispute between Matthew Karwalski and Squash Australia concerning his non-selection for the 2014 Australian Commonwealth Games squash team. Initially named as a non-travelling reserve in April 2014, Karwalski appealed the decision to Squash Australia's Appeal Committee, which upheld his appeal and referred the matter back to the Selection Committee. However, the Selection Committee reaffirmed its original decision, prompting a second appeal, which was dismissed. Karwalski then sought arbitration through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The central issues involved inconsistencies in the selection and appeal procedures outlined in Squash Australia's 2014 Commonwealth Games Athlete Selection Policy and its accompanying Guidelines. Clause 38 of the Selection Policy required a de novo review by the Appeal Committee, while Clause 7 of the Guidelines suggested a review-based approach. The arbitrator ruled that the Selection Policy should prevail, mandating a de novo review.
Procedural fairness was also a key concern, as Karwalski was denied access to relevant documents during the appeal hearing, preventing him from fully responding to the material considered by the Appeal Committee. The selection criteria included factors such as rankings, recent performances, past records, doubles outcomes, medical assessments, team compatibility, and future potential. The Selection Committee prioritized medal prospects, aiming for at least one gold, one silver, and two bronze medals. Karwalski, recovering from hip surgery in December 2013, provided medical reports confirming his fitness by April 2014. Despite this, the coaches favored Zac Alexander, citing his suitability for doubles and past higher ranking, though Karwalski argued his current ranking had improved post-recovery.
The Appeal Committee dismissed Karwalski's appeal, emphasizing the Team Goal of maximizing medal chances and the importance of doubles performance. Karwalski contested this, arguing the selection process improperly prioritized predetermined doubles pairings over individual merit. He also criticized the Appeal Committee for misinterpreting the Selection Policy, particularly the relationship between Clauses 21, 22, and 23, which governed team selection and doubles pairings. The Court found procedural unfairness and inconsistency in the Appeal Committee's review process, ruling in Karwalski's favor and remitting the matter back for reconsideration. The Appeal Committee was instructed to conduct a de novo review, consider all relevant materials, and apply the selection criteria afresh.
The case underscores the challenges in balancing individual merit, team strategy, and procedural fairness in athlete selection. It highlights the importance of clear, consistent policies and the need for transparency in high-stakes sporting decisions. The Court's decision emphasized adherence to procedural fairness and correct interpretation of selection policies to ensure an equitable process. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was referred back to the Appeal Committee for reevaluation based on the Court's ruling.