Post on 22-Dec-2015
description
transcript
121002/018
Federal Court of Australia
District Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
James Albert Hird
Applicant
PROCESSED
No VID 328 01 2014
fEDERAL CUIJRT 0 A VICTORIA 6isiRI~j R~~:iALlA
REG<n/ED / FilED TRY
30 JUN 2014 Fees Pt-id Receipt ~ •••.• - ................... ................ . -... ~.::.:.::: . .::~ ............. ; ;;; ; ;;;;;
The Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
Respondent
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The Applicant:
1.1 was appointed, on 28 September 2010. Senior Coach of the Essendon Football
Club (EFC). a club licensed with the Australian Football League (the AFL) and
subject 10 Ihe AFL Rules;
1.2 at all material times, is and was subject to the AFL Regulations, the AFL Player
Rules and the AFL Anti-Doping Code;
Particulars
Copies of the AFL Regulations, the AFL Player Rules and the AFL Anti
Doping Code may be inspected upon request.
1.3 has continued at all relevant times, and continues, to be employed by EFC in the
capacity of Senior Coach of the EFC; and
1.4 in his capacity as Senior Coach of the EFC, supervised the preparation, training
and performance of players who participated as players for EFC in the
Australian Rules Football competition in the 2012 season (EFC Players) .
2. The term of the Applicant's employment contract with EFC expires in October 2016.
Filed on behalf 01 (name & role of party) The ARRlicanl, ..,!ames Albert Hird .. ________ _ Prepared by (name of personllalN}'er) __ Steven ~mendo~ __ ._ _ ______ _ Law fi rm (if applicable) ..A~hurstAustrar§.______________ _ _________ _ Tel j~) 9679 ~OO _. ________ Fax .JQ.~ 96~~.!~..!.. ._ __. __ Email _ §.!~e.!l~ndofa@!l§.!!urst.com _____ ____________ __ .... __
Address for service Level 26, 181 William Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 (include stale and postcode) ._PX . ill!~. Mel9.2.!:!f!!!'!. __ _
[Version 2 form approved 09/05l2013J
·06-3 0 16:09 15128 +61 3 9679 3111 » VIe Regi s try D ? 1 1 0
1lI003/018
2
3. The Respondent:
3. 1 was appointed under s 200 of the Australian Sports Anfi~Doping Authority Act
2006 (Cth) (the Act) as the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anli~
Doping Authority (ASADA);
3.2 has the functions set out in s 21 of the Act. which functions include such functions
as are conferred by the NAD Scheme set out in Schedule 1 of the Australian
Sports and Anti~Doping Authority Regulations 2006 (herein referred to as the
NAD Scheme and the Regulations respectively);
3.3 has the power, conferred by s 22 of the Act, to do all things "necessary or
convenient 10 be done for or in connection with the performance of his or her
functions";
3.4 at all times was authorised under s 13(1) of the Act and clause 3.27(1) of the NAD
Scheme to conduct investigations of possible anti-doping rule violations;
3.5 was subject to obligations of confidentiality pursuant to which:
06-3 0 16:09 151 2 8
(a) at all times prior to 31 July 2013, the Respondent and his predecessor
were authorised by 5 13(1)(9) of the Act and clause 4.21 of the NAD
Scheme to disclose "non-entry information" obtained during such an
investigation to, inter alia, "a sporting administration body", provided that
Ihe disclosure was ufor the purposes of, or in connection with", such
investigation;
(b) at all limes from 1 August 2013, the Respondent and his predecessor
were authorised by s 13(1)(g) of the Act and clause 4.21 of the NAD
Scheme to disclose "non-entry information" obtained during such an
investigation 10, inter alia, "a sporting administration body", provided that
the disclosure was "for the purposes of, or in connection with ," the
administration of the NAD Scheme; and
(c) the Respondent and his predecessor were (subject to exceptions)
prohibited by s 71 of the Act from disclosing "NAD scheme personal
information- (as defined in 4 of the Act) to any other person;
(the Confidentiality Obligations);
+61 3 9679 3111 » VIe Registry p ., 11 "
!2I004/018
3
Particulars
The AFL is and was a "sporting administration body" for the purposes
of s 4 of the Act.
3.6 at all relevant times had, and has, the power under clause 4.07A(2) to (4) of the
NAD Scheme to issue a notice (known as a "show cause" notice) to the EFC
Players which notice must, inter alia, advise that the recipient may make a
submission within the "response period", which period may be determined by the
Respondent; and
3.7 issued "show cause" notices on or about 12 June 2014 to 34 individuals who
were EFC Players (the Notices) during the 2012 season.
4. ASADA:
4.1 was established under s 20 of the Act;
4.2 consists of the Respondent and ASADA staff: s 20A of the Act; and
4.3 has the function of assisting the Respondent with the performance of his
functions: s 20B at the Act.
The Joint Investigation - the Agreement
5. In about February 2013, but on a date unknown to the Applicant, ASADA and the AFL
entered into an agreement whereby ASADA and the AFL would conduct, each with the aid
of the other, what both ASADA and the AFL thereafter described as a "joint investigation
(the Joint Investigation).
Particulars
The Applicant is not able to provide particulars of the agreement until ASADA
gives discovery.
6. In February 2013, the Respondent and the AFL launched the Joint Investigation, pursuant
to the agreement referred to in paragraph 5 above (the Agreement), into the supplements
program implemented by EFC in 2012.
Particulars
The Agreement is partly express and partly to be implied. To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, the Agreement was in writing and was amended in late
-06-30 16:09 15128 +61 3 9679 311 1 » VIe Registry P 4/11'1
4
February 2013. The original Agreement and documenls recording revisions to it
are in the possession of the Respondent.
The existence of, and aspects of, the Agreement were referred to by the CEO of
Ihe AFL, GWon McLachlan in an email in late March 2013, the content of which is
reported in an article (a copy of which can be provided on request) by Michael
Warner in the Herald Sun on 18 June 2014, "Lawyers for Essendon players ask
ASADA 10 provide evidence allowing them to respond to show-cause notices;
want extension 10 respond" .
The existence of the Agreement is also to be inferred from the subsequent
actions of the Respondent. ASADA and the AFL in proceeding to conduct the
Joint Investigation, as to which the Applicant refers to and repeats paragraphs 9-
16 below and the particulars thereto.
On ABC Grandstand Radio on Saturday 14 June 2014, the Respondent
confirmed that a joint investigation had taken place. A copy of the radio interview
transcript is in the possession of the Applicant's soliCitors and may be inspected
upon appointment.
Further particulars of the Agreement will be provided after the Respondent gives discovery.
As to the Joint Investigation, the Applicant refers to and relies on paragraphs 2
and 3 of the Applicant's Further and Better Particulars of the Originating
Application, filed and served on 23 June 2014.
The Joint Investigation - a purpose
!2J005/018
7. It was a purpose of the Joint Investigation to collect infonnation that would be provided by
ASADA 10 the AFL otherwise than in accordance with:
7. 1 clause 4.21 of the NAD Scheme;
7.2 read with s 13(1)(g) of the Act.
Particulars
(a) That purpose is to be inferred from all the circumstances surrounding
the establishment and conduct of the Joint Investigation and the
circumstances surrounding the preparation and provision by ASADA to
the AFL of the "Interim Investigation Report Operation COSIA Australian
Football League", concerning the 2012 Essendon supplements program
(the Interim Report) on or about 2 August 201 3.
-06-30 16:09 15128 +61 3 9679 3111 » VIe Registry
5
(b) Further particulars will be provided after the Respondent gives
discovery.
Ql0 0 6 / 018
8. Further, it was a purpose of the Joint Investigation that the Respondent and/or ASADA
obtain a benefit it did not otherwise have under the ASADA legislative regime when
conducting an investigation, and could not have without the express authority of
Parliament, namely the power:
8.1 to compel an EFC Player or other person employed by the EFC (EFC support
staff) to participate in the Joint Investigation and specifically, to attend a
recorded interrogative interview; and
8.2 to direct, under threat of AFL censure and sanction, that an EFC Player or EFC
support slaff member respond and answer every question asked of him/her; and
8.3 to abrogate and/or prevent the exercise of the common law right against self·
incrimination on the part of each EFC Player and/or EFC support staff when
participating in the Joint Investigation interview process conducted by ASADA.
l- 06- 3 0 1 6 :09 1512 8
Particulars
The purpose is to be inferred from the statements of the following key
officers of the AFL:
(a) Mr Clothier, Manager of Integrity Services, in an article he co·
authored in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, a copy of
which is reproduced as annexure "DJF·2" to the affidavit of
Dominic James Fleeton sworn on 13 June 201 4, where:
(i) Mr Clothier et al stated: "In February 2013 the AFL and Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency (ASADA) .. .
started an investigation into peptide use at three AFL clubs by using modem investigative techniques'; and
(ii) under the heading "AFL·ASADA investigation"
Mr Clothier et al stated: "". the AFL and ASADA partnered to undertake an extensive investigation into the use of the peptides and other substances in the AFL . . This investigation was focused and centralized, with complementary forensic activities and scientific resourcing that aI/owed the exchange of information and sharing of expertise. Owing to the contract arrangements binding the players and officials to a code of practice, the AFL had extensive and, at the
+6 1 3 9679 3 111 » VIe Reg i st r y
6
time, superior investigative powers to that of ASADA,
which facilitated the inquiry and substantially assisted
both partieS';
(b) Mr Andrew Demetriou, then AFL CEO, on or about 27 May
2014 affirmed the fact of a joint investigation and further stated that the AFL's resources and ability to compel people to give
evidence had assisted the investigation.
1lI007l018
Joint Investigation - the description
9. Under and pursuant to the Agreement:
9.1 ASADA and the AFL agreed to:
(a) use powers of compulsion available to the AFL under the AFL Player
Aules and AFL Anti-Doping Code in order to compel EFC Players and the
EFC support staff to attend intelViews and answer questions; and
(b) share information collected in the course of the Joint Investigation.
Particulars
(1) The existence and characteristics of the Joint Investigation were referred to in the Interim Report (and which may have been updated on 13 August 2013).
(2) Emails were sent by ASADA 10 those required to attend for interview, which attached a document headed "Appendix Bn
, in which sanctions available only to the AFL were set out. An example of such an email was sent by John Nolan of ASADA to the legal representative of the Applicant on 10 April 2013 referred to in paragraph 10 below.
(3) Statements to the effect that ASADA and the AFL were conducting a joint investigation were made on multiple occasions, including by Abraham Haddad (an employee of the AFL) to the Applicant on 16 April 2013, in the presence of John Nolan and Aaron Walker, ASADA investigators, as identified in paragraph 15.1 below.
(4) As to the steps taken constituting the Joint Investigation, the Applicant refers to and repeats paragraphs 10-16 below, and the particulars thereto.
10. On 10 April 2013, the Applicant's legal representative received an email communication
from John Nolan, an investigator employed by ASADA, ahaching an "explanatory
document".
- 06 - 30 16:09 15128 +61 3 9679 3111 » VIe Registry
121008/ 0 18
7
Particulars
A copy of the "explanatory document" is reproduced as part of exhibit "JAH-1" to
the unsworn affidavit of the Applicant, which is annexure "OJF-1 " to the affidavit
of Dominic James Fleeton sworn on 13 June 2014.
11. The "explanatory documenr included statements to the following effect (amongst other
statements):
11 .1 The ASADA and the AFL investigation involved an allegation that AFL athletes
and support persons may have used prohibited substances and may have
engaged in prohibited methods.
11 .2 Rule 12.7 of the AFL's Anti-Doping Code demanded that each player, club,
officer and official, upon request of the AFL General Manager Football Operation
or the AFL Medical Officer:
(a) fully cooperate with any investigation;
(b) fully and truthfully answer any question asked for the purpose of such
investigation; and
(c) provide any document in their possession or control relevant to such
investigation; and
11.3 "Failure to comply with the requirements of this notice may be acted upon by the
AFL as a breach of the AFL's Anti-Doping Code which if perused [sic] by the AFl
could be sanctioned at the discretion of the AFL Tribunal under the Anti-Doping
Code rule 14.11".
12. Pages 6-8 of the "explanatory document" contained, without accompanying explanation, a
copy of Division 137 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
13. On 10 April 2013, the Applicant received a letter, dated 12 April 2013, from Brett Clothier,
Manager - Integrity SelVices of the AFl (the AFL letter) , headed "Notice for IntelView:
James Hird".
Particulars
A copy of the AFL letter is reproduced as exhibit "JAH-2" 10 Ihe unsworn affidavit
of the Applicant, which is annexure "OJF-1" 10 the affidavit of Dominic James Fleelon sworn on 13 June 2014.
· 06 - 30 16 : 09 15128 +61 3 9679 3111 » VIe Registry P Po h 0
~~, ww ~ V ~ .. ,~" .. ~.,: "'u rlV. +01 j 'Jb t'J ]111 tai009/0 1 8
8
14. The AFL lelter included statements to the following effect (amongst other statements):
14.1 The AFL and ASADA were undertaking an investigation into the production,
distribution, and use of prohibited substances in the AFL (defined in the AFL
letter as "the Investigation").
14.2 Clause 12.7 Of the AFL Anti-Doping Code placed obligations on relevant persons
10:
(a) fully cooperate with any investigation;
(b) fuUy and truthfully answer any question asked for the purpose of such
investigation; and
(c) provide any document in their possession or control relevant to such
investigation.
14.3 AFL Player Rule 1.8 obliged relevant persons, amongst other obligations, not to:
(a) give any false or misleading evidence to any hearing or investigation
conducted under the AFL Rules and Regulations;
(b) refuse or fail to attend or give evidence as directed at any inquiry when
requested to do so; and
(c) refuse or fail to cooperate with any investigation conducted by the AFL
under the AFL Rules and Regulations.
14.4 The Applicant was required under the AFL Player Rules and clause 12.7 of the
Code to attend, on 16 April 2013, an interview with the AFL and ASADA in
relation to the Investigation.
14.5 "Failure to comply with the requirements of the Notice may be acted upon by the
AFL as a breach of the AFL Player Rules and/or a breach of the Code."
15. On 16 April 2013, the Applicant attended an interview with ASADA and AFL
representatives (the Interview).
15.1 The IntelView was introduced by Abraham Haddad, an employee of the AFL (the
AFL Employee), and then principally conducted by ASADA investigators John
Nolan and Aaron Walker.
14-06-30 16:09 15128 +61 3 9679 3111 » Vie Registry P q/1R
21010/018
9
15.2 The AFL Employee and the two ASADA investigators were present throughout
the Interview which lasted approximately 9 hours and involved the Applicant
answering more than 1300 questions.
15.3 At the commencement of the tnterview, the AFL Employee said to Ihe Applicant,
in the presence of the two ASADA investigators, words to the following effect:
"This is a joint investigation between AFL and ASADA - the Australian
Sports Anti-Doping Agency - and it's run under the rules of the AFL."
15.4 The AFL Employee informed the Applicant, also at the commencement of the
Interview. that if the Applicant refused 10 answer any of the Questions put to the
Applicant by the AFL employee. the Applicant's refusal could result in sanction
under the AFL Rules.
15.5 Neither of the two ASADA investigators contradicted the AFL Employee's
statement set out in paragraph 15.3 above.
15.6 Neither of the two ASADA investigators;
) 14 -06-3 0 16: 09 15128
(a) asked the Applicant whether the Applicant consented to the disclosure to
the AFL of the information that the Applicant supplied in the course of
the interview; or
(b) informed the Applicant that the Applicant had a right 10 refuse to
consent, or a right to withhold consent. to the disclosure to the AFL of
that information; or
(c) stated to the Applicant that the ASADA legislative regime did not
abrogate the common law right against self-incrimination; or
(d) stated to the Applicant that he had the right to refuse any question on
the ground that it might incriminate him; and
(e) stated to the Applicant that, pursuant to the ASADA legislative regime.
the Applicant, upon being interviewed, had the right to remain silent
without penalty or censure.
+61 3 9679 3111 » VIe Registry P 10/18
IilIOll/Ol8
10
15.7 At the commencement 01 the IntelView, counsel for the Applicant and the AFL
Employee engaged in a discussion to the following effect:
Mr Nolan se:
AFL Employee:
Mr Nalan se: AFL Employee:
Mr No!an SC:
Now, gentleman, we don 't want to enter into any
debate as to the legal arguments today as to the
nature of the joint investigation as distinct from
two separate investigations. We'll put that
debate to the side for a later lime, if necessary
Okay. ThaI's good
We understand that's what you say
Yeah
And he understands what you say.
15.8 After the Interview, the Applicant was directed by the AFL to produce the
Applicant's mobile phone for forensic examination; and the Applicant complied
with that direction.
Particulars
A copy of the AFL direction is reproduced as exhibit "JAH-3" to the
unsworn affidavit of the Applicant, which is annexure "DJF-l " to the
affidavit of Dominic James Fleeton sworn on 13 June 2014.
16. From May 2013, the AFL and ASADA intelViewed approximately 48 EFC Players as part
of the Investigation (the Player Interviews).
16.1 Each EFC Player was given a notice to attend the applicable Player IntelView in
substantially the same terms as the AFL letter given to the Applicant, referred 10
in paragraphs 13 and 14 above.
16.2 Each intelView was conducted by at least one AFL employee and at least one
ASADA employee.
16.3 At the commencement of each Player IntelView, an AFL employee made
statements to the EFC Player, in the presence of at least one ASADA employee,
to the same effect as:
1- 06 - 3 0 1 6 :09 1512 8
(a) the statement made 10 the Applicant referred to in paragraph 15.3
above; and
(b) the statement made to the Applicant referred to in paragraph 15.4
above.
+61 3 9679 3111 » VIe Registry P 11 h 0
t21012/018
11
16.4 The statement referred to in paragraph 16.3(a) above was not contradicted by
any ASAOA employee present at the lime of the relevant Player IntelViews.
16.5 None at the ASADA employees who were present at any Player IntelViews:
(a) asked the EFC Player whether the EFC Player consented to the
disclosure to the AFL of the information that the EFC Player supplied in
the course of the Player IntelView; or
(b) informed the EFC Player that the EFC Player had a right to refuse to
consent, or a right to withhold consen!, to the disclosure to the AFL of
that information.
The Interim Report
17. After intelViewing the Applicant, the EFC Players and other EFC support staff during the
Joint Investigation, ASAOA, amongst other actions, used such information as was
obtained from those parties during the investigation to draft the Interim Report.
18. On dates known to the Respondent, ASAOA provided drafts or versions of the Interim
Report or parts thereof to the AFL.
19. On dates known to the Respondent but by about 2 August 2013 ASAOA provided the
Interim Report to the AFL.
20. On dates unknown to the Applicant, the AFL then provided copies of the Interim Report
to:
20.1 members of Ihe AFL executive;
20.2 each and every member of the AFL Commission; and
20.3 other persons and entities, unknown to the Applicant. who were neither athletes
nor persons otherwise permitted by the Act and the Regulations to receive the
information contained in the Interim Report.
21. By providing the Interim Report. including any versions or drafts thereof, 10 the AFL, the
Respondent and ASAOA:
21.1 acted in breach of the Confidentiality Obligations (the Confidentiality
Obligations) imposed on them by the Act, s 13(1 )(t) and (g) and s 71; and the
NAO Scheme, clause 4.21; and
06-30 16 :09 15128 +61 3 9679 3111 » Vie Registry P 1")/10
_ __ _ 'W~ .. ~O,~ ~J.J.J. 1dI013/01B
12
21.2 acted for purposes extraneous to those of the Respondent and ASAOA in
furthering their own investigation into possible violations of the anti-doping rules
in the NAD Scheme.
22. In the period after the publishing of the tnterim Report, the Respondent and the AFL
continued in their Joint Investigation into the EFC, the EFC Players and the EFC support
staff and each of them continues in that investigation to this day_
Particulars
On or about 13 August 2013, Mr Andrew Oillon, Chief Legal Counsel for the AFL,
stated thal lhat Joinllnvestigation remained open.
After 31 August 2013, but at a time unknown to the Applicant, ASAOA and the
AFL carried out further inteNiews as part of the Joint Investigation, including of
Dean Robinson, who is a former member of the EFC support staff.
The Notices
23. On or about 12 June 2014, ASADA prepared documents that purported to be notices to
34 EFC Players under clause 4.07A of the NAD Scheme (the Notices).
Particulars
(a) Copies of the Notices are in the possession of the Respondent.
(b) The Applicant is not able to provide particulars of the Notices until the
Respondent gives discovery.
24. On or about 13 June 2014, ASADA delivered the Notices to 34 EFC Players.
Consequences of conduct of Joint Investigation
25. Because:
25.1 the Respondent and ASADA lacked any power to conduct the Joint Investigation
with the AFL;
25.2 it was a purpose of Ihe Joint Investigation 10 collect information for a purpose not
contemplated by the Act and the NAD Scheme - namely, disclosure in the form
of the Interim Report to the AFL, otherwise than in accordance with clause 4.21
of the NAD Scheme, read with s 13(1)(g) of the Act;
.4-06-30 16:09 15128 +61 3 9679 3111 » VIe Registry
~OIOti ;1014 MaN 16: 21 FAX +61 3 9679 3111 121014 / 018
13
25.3 the Joint Investigation was conducted in contravention of the Confidentiality
Obligations; and
25.4 the Joint Investigation was conducted in a manner that precluded the exercise by
the Applicant and/or any EFC Player or EFC support staff of the common law
right against sell-incrimination;
25.5 the Interim Report was disseminated by ASADA in breach of the Confidentiality
Obligations and for purposes extraneous to Ihe furthering of ASADA's own
investigation;
the information collected during the Joint Investigation (being the information on which the
Interim Report was based) cannot qualify as evidence or information received by the
Respondent for the purposes of clause 4.07A(1) of the NAD Scheme.
Particulars
The elements of the Joint Investigation relied on by the Applicant that were not
authorised by the Act, ASAOA Regulations or NAO Scheme or which
contravened the Confidentiality Obligations included:
(a) the conducting of joint interviews by ASADA and the AFL;
(b) ASAOA's reliance on the AFL's powers to compel EFC Players and EFC
support staff to give evidence under threat of sanclions from the AFL;
(c) ASADA's use of Ihe AFL's investigative powers and powers of compulsion
that were not available to ASAOA;
(d) ASADA's disclosure to the AFL, of confidential information and documents
obtained by ASADA in the course of its investigation, including the
immediate disclosure of information obtained through interviews
consequenl on Ihe AFL's attendance at interviews;
(e) the rendering ineffective ai, or alternatively, the imposition of a prohibition
on, the Applicant exercising his common law right against self
incrimination; and
(f) the provision of the Interim Report, including all versions thereof, by
ASADA to the AFL.
26. In the absence of such evidence or information, the Respondent had and has no power,
under clause 4.07A(1) and (2) of the NAO Scheme, to:
26.1 determine that there is a possible non-presence anti-doping rule violation that
warrants action by the Respondent; or
~01 4 -0 6 -30 16 : 09 1 5 128 +61 3 9679 3111 » VIe Registry P 14/18
30/06 2014 MON 16: 21 FAX +61 3 9679 3111 ~015/01B
14
26.2 give a notice to the Applicant or any EFC Player or other EFC support staff of a
possible non-presence anti-doping rule violation.
27. In the premises:
27.1 the Respondent has no power under clause 4.07A(2) of the NAD Scheme to
issue any notice to the Applicant; and
27.2 the Notices issued to the EFC Players by the Respondent on or about 12 June
2014 were ultra vires, alternatively liable to be set aside as invalid or improperly
issued.
28. In the absence of a valid notice having been issued by the Respondent under clause
4.07A(2) of the NAO Scheme, the Respondent has no power to refer the Notices to the
Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (the Panel) for consideration by the Panel under clauses
4.09(2) and 4.10 of the NAD Scheme.
Effect on the Applicant's interests
29. The Applicant is and was at all relevant times employed as coach of EFC, a club
registered with the AFL and subject to the AFL Rules.
Particulars
The Applicant refers to and repeats paragraph 1 above.
30. The issuing by the Respondent of any "show cause" notices to the Applicant, any EFC
Player or EFC support staff arising from or relying on information obtained in the Joint
Investigation is likely to cause the Applicant damage to his reputation and business
interests.
Particulars
The prejudice to the Applicant arises from the adverse publicity relating to his
position as Senior Coach of EFC during the relevant period.
31. The making of entries on the Register of Findings concerning the Applicant, any EFC
Player or EFC support staff consequent upon the issue of an invalid notice by the
Respondent under clause 4.07A(2) of the NAD Scheme is likely to cause the Applicant
damage to his reputation and business interests.
Particulars
The making of entries on the Register of Findings is likely to cause the Applicant damage because, following the making of such entries:
2014-06-30 16:09 15128 +61 3 9679 3111 » VIe Registry PIS/le
15
(a) the AFL General Manager - Football Operations is obliged, or likely, to
issue Infraction Notices under clause 13 of the AFL's Anti·Doping Code to,
inter alia, EFC Players;
(b) recipients of Infraction Notices will face the AFL Tribunal which could lead
to adverse findings or to the imposition of sanctions under clause 14 of the
AFL Anti·Doping Code;
(c) the AFL may seek to impose sanctions in its discretion on the Applicant
uf"!der clause 22 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code; and
(d) the reputation and business interests of the Applicant would be adversely
affected if any EFC Player who received "show cause notices~ was
ineligible to train or compete in the 2014 and/or 2015 seasons:
Claim for relief
(i) for any remaining part of the Applicant's tenure as Senior Coach of
EFC; and
(ii) by reason of alleged conduct during any part of the Applicant's tenure
as Senior Coach of EFC.
32. The Applicant claims the following relief:
141016/018
1. A declaration that the investigation conducted by ASADA into the Applicant and the
players who were on the Essendon Football Club playing list during the 2012
football season (the EFC players) and which was referred to by ASADA as part of
"Operation Cobia" (the investigation) was ultra vires the Australian Sports and Anti·
Doping Authority Act 2006 (the Act). the Australian Sports and Anti-Doping Authority
Regulations 2006 (the Regulations) and the NAD Scheme in Schedule 1 to the
Regulations (the NAD scheme).
lA. A declaration that ASADA, by providing the document it called an "interim reporr',
including any versions or drafts thereof, to the Australian Football League:
(a) acted in breach of the confidentiality obligations imposed on ASADA by the
Ac1 (s 13(1)(/) and (g) and s 71) and the NAD Scheme (clause 4.21 ); and
(b) acted for purposes extraneous to those of ASADA in furthering its own
investigation into possible violations of the anti-doping rules.
2. An injunction restraining the Respondent from issuing 10 the Applicant a notice
under clause 4.07A(2) of the NAD Scheme arising from or relying on information
obtained in the investigation.
· 06 - 30 16:09 15128 +61 3 9679 3111 » VIe Registry
121017 / 018
16
3. An injunction restraining the Respondent from issuing 10 any further notice under
clause 4.07A(2) of the NAD Scheme arising from or relying on information obta ined
in the investigation to any EFC ptayer.
4. A permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from using any information
obtained in the investigation for any purpose under the Act, the Regulations and the
NAD Scheme.
4A. An order setting aside all notices issued by ASADA to the EFC Players (the
Notices) purportedly pursuant to clause 4.07A(2) of the NAD Scheme.
4B. Further or alternatively:
(a) an order permanently staying the operation of the Notices; or
(b) an injunction restraining the Respondent from requiring a response to, or
otherwise taking any action in reliance upon, the Notices.
5. Costs.
6. Such further or other relief as the Court considers just.
Dated: 30 June 201
1)Ll , ___ ._. ______ .. L: __ . _______ _ Signed by Steven Am dola -
Lawyer for the Applicant
This pleading was prepared by Counsel Peter Hanks, Nicholas Harrington and Rachel
Walsh.
·06 -3 0 1 6 :09 1 5 128 +61 3 967 9 3 111 » VIe Re gistry
~0 16 / 01 6
17
Certificate of lawyer
I Steven Amendola certify to the Court that, in relalion to the statement of claim filed on behalf of
the Applicant, the factual and legal material available to me at present provides a proper basis
for each allegation in the pleading.
Date: ~ 0 er \..vt.-l- 'La l t.,
c:::: Signe~· - ndOta------ --- ---
Lawyer for the Applicant
, -06 -3 0 16:09 1 512 8 +61 3 96 79 3 111 » VIe Re g is t ry
12I001/018
Facsimile transmission
AShurst Australia
level 26
181 Willillm Street MelbOurne VIC )000 Austrllllll
GPO Box 99)8 ~'elbourne VIC )001 Australia
Tel ... 61) 9679 lOOO f ill( ... 6 1 ) 96793111 OX l88 Melbourne www.ilshurst.com
Steven Amendola
Attention Federal Court of Australia Our ret SPA\DFl \03 3001 3207
Victoria Registry
Town and country Melbourne Your ret VlD328j2014
f llx number (03) 8600 3351 EITIIIU steven.llmendola@ashl.lrst.com
Telepl'lonf; number (03) 8600 3333 Dire.;!; telephone number +61 3 9679 3628
Oate 30 June 2014 Tota l numter of pages 17 pages to foHow
If there are any problems with this transmission please contact ou r facsimile operator on +61 3 96793000.
VID3 28 / 2014 - James Albert Hird v Th e Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
Dear General Manager
Please file the enclosed Statement of Claim.
Please post a stamped version of the document to Ashurst Australia, level 26, 181 WillJam Street , Melbourne, Victoria 3000.
Yours faithfully
Ashurst Au stralia
TIM mes~,ge Is sent In con lidcn<>! (0' the ~ddr<!nee OIlIV. It may cOIltaln ~a.y plM~ InfOl'matlon. n.e contetllS are 1101 to b!! <ll.do • ..., 10 ""YOrl<! other Ih.ln II>e ~d,nsee. Unlllltllo<1sed '~plent. ar<! ' e<!uesteO to pr<!ser\le thlJ confidentiality and 10 .dvlse lhoe sender Irnrnedllttly of l roy e. ror In U~,..rnl~on.
AUSTAAUA, B~laIUH CHINA, FAAUC f GUNAA'Y HOH(; ICOtlG SAR ll1oo"E$IA, (ASSOCtATtD OffICe) lT~lV JlP~ PA,PUA New GUIllfA. SoouoI/UtA!)tA, StN(';APORt SrA,1N SV/eO~N UNITfD AAAa EHIAATt"5 u:<lrw KLN:iOOH UtllT!O STAllS 01' AHElttCA A,USTItAUA\fl\2JO.16l1 1.0 1
MI ... "t AuW~"a (A611 '5 304 286 095) I~ I gene<;oI patt_""" con.tllut!O unoltr the I~wt of . he AuWalj~" c..~i\al Tcrritory en<! Is part oIlhe As"",,,SI GtoIoP. lhe Ast.ursl Group hu 3" ofnce I,. caCh of the pl<><:n IiSled .bow.
-06-30 16 : 09 15128 +61 3 9679 311 1 » VIe Registry ~ .. - -