Natural justiceBias - athlete appealing successfully on new evidence against ban imposed by governing body for taking banned drug - governing body not liable in contract for bias of disciplinary panel membersModahl v British Athletic Federation Ltd (In administration); CA: Lords Justice Mance, Latham and Jonathan Parker; 12 October 2001The claimant, a British athlete, was banned from competing in the UK or abroad after a disciplinary panel decided that she had taken a banned drug, but this decision was reversed by an appeal tribunal which also revoked the ban on fresh evidence produced by the athlete.In an action against the defendant for breach of contract, the claimant alleged that the defendant had failed to appoint an unbiased disciplinary panel.

The judge dismissed the claim, holding that there was no contract and no bias; in any case, any unfairness had been cured by the appeal panel.

The claimant appealed.Anthony Julius, solicitor advocate, (Mishcon de Reya) for the claimant; Charles Flint QC and Andrew Green (Hammond Suddards Edge) for the federation.Held, dismissing the appeal, that despite the absence of any express contract the national athletic governing body, when inviting an athlete to participate in any competition, was contractually bound by its own rules to appoint unbiased members of a disciplinary panel and the claimant by same rules was bound to accept the decision of the disciplinary panel; that the defendant, however, was not directly liable for any bias of any members or breach of natural justice after the finding was overruled by an appeal tribunal that revoked the ban on fresh evidence produced by the athlete; that the claimant, therefore, had no cause of action against the defendant.