Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°1 - 2024 - 184

SPÉCIAL « ARBITRAGE ET JEUX OLYMPIQUES »
behaviour and coaching techniques so that Foul Play resulting in head injuries is
minimised.
A full appeal process applies to all first instance decisions. However, unless the
Appeal Committee determines, upon application that it is appropriate to hold the
hearing on a de novo basis, there are limited ground upon which an appeal can be
based; namely, where the decision was in error (either as to central factual findings
or in law; or in the interests of justice should be overturned; or the sanction imposed
was manifestly excessive / wrong in principle; or that the sanction imposed was
unduly lenient. The first instance decision will not be overturned unless it is proven
that the decision was manifestly wrong or the decision involved wrong principles.
New or additional evidence can only be considered by the Appeal Committee
where it was not upon reasonable enquiry available at the time of the original
proceedings.
The World Rugby Disciplinary Regime is applied by Member Unions,
Associations, Tournament Organisers and World Rugby itself within its competitions
and matches. To date, it has never been successfully challenged in the civil courts
of any constituent Member Union's country and, in particular, on the grounds that
it is unfair, unreasonable or repugnant to justice. 26
This supports the widely held
view that the system is generally fair, independent and fit for purpose. 27
4. Arbitration and World Rugby
The regulatory process within rugby is not an arbitration process but the internal
disciplinary process of the sport. There are two exceptions to this structure where
arbitration does make an appearance.
First, for anti-doping the World Anti-Doping Code promulgated by the World
Anti-Doping Agency prevails and is mirrored in World Rugby Regulation 21. For
International Players the final appeal is to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. This
mirrors the structure in other International Federations. World Rugby has had
four doping cases appealed to CAS, either by the player or by World Rugby itself
since 2005, although there have been other rugby cases involving national bodies
and Unions. For many Member Unions, their domestic laws require that antidoping
cases are dealt with by dedicated national bodies and it is possible that at
the appellate stage within these bodies that arbitration is also a feature.
The second exception is in relation to matters covered by the Olympic Charter
and in particular Rugby Sevens as a participant in the Olympic Games. It was
necessary and accepted adjustment, as part of Rugby's joining process into the
membership of the International Olympic Committee, that certain of its Regulations
were amended to recognise the supremacy of the Olympic Charter in defined areas
e.g. eligibility to participate in the qualification process and the Olympic Games
26. See further the cases of Richard Wyllie Loe v The New Zealand Rugby Football Union, Oral
Judgement of Gallen J. of 9 & 10 August 1993 (CP. 209/93) and Johan Le Roux v New Zealand
Rugby Football Union, Oral Judgement of Eichelbaum CJ of 14 March 1995 (CP 346/94).
27. A more detailed expose of World Rugby Regulations can be found in: International Sports
Law and Policy Bulletin Issue 1-2024, International Sports Justice, Chapter - 'International Rugby
Justice: The World Rugby Judicial System', Susan Ahern & Yvonne Nolan (Sports Law and Policy
Centre 2024).
182
The Paris Journal of International Arbitration 2024‑1

Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°1 - 2024

Table des matières de la publication Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°1 - 2024