The case revolves around a dispute between the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Canoe Federation (ICF) concerning the late entry of athlete Amanda Rankin for the women’s K1 500m event at the 2004 Athens Olympics. The conflict stemmed from the ICF’s initial error in failing to allocate unused quota places to Australia, which delayed the submission of Rankin’s entry. The AOC argued that the lateness was a direct result of the ICF’s mistake and invoked the principle of estoppel to prevent the ICF from rejecting the entry on procedural grounds. The timeline of events began on 8 July 2004, when the AOC submitted entries for the women’s K4 500m event. On 20 July, the ICF confirmed the reallocation of unused quota places but erroneously excluded Australia. The AOC appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 21 July, the same day as the entry deadline, and submitted a conditional entry for Rankin in the K2 500m pending the appeal’s outcome. On 26 July, the ICF admitted its error and allocated two additional quota places to Australia, prompting the AOC to withdraw its appeal and submit a new entry for Rankin in the K1 500m. However, the ICF later rejected this entry, citing the missed deadline. The AOC contended that the delay was unavoidable due to the ICF’s initial error, while the ICF maintained its refusal based on the late submission. The CAS ad hoc Division heard the case and emphasized the importance of entry deadlines but also recognized that an International Federation could be estopped from enforcing such deadlines if the delay resulted from its own mistake. The tribunal ruled in favor of the AOC, stating that the ICF’s original error estopped it from rejecting Rankin’s entry due to lateness, as the delay was a direct consequence of the ICF’s actions. The decision highlighted the balance between strict adherence to deadlines and fairness in cases where procedural errors by governing bodies create unavoidable delays for athletes. The ruling ensured Rankin’s participation, underscoring the importance of accountability in sports administration. The CAS also noted that the decision was based on exceptional circumstances and should not be seen as a precedent for bypassing entry deadlines in the future. The appeal was allowed, and Rankin was permitted to compete in the K1 500m event. The case illustrates the complexities of Olympic qualification rules and the legal mechanisms available to resolve disputes, emphasizing the binding nature of the Olympic Charter and the authority of the CAS in such matters. The Panel’s decision ultimately upheld fairness while respecting the framework of international sports regulations.