Modahl v British Athletic Federation (1994–2001)

Abstract

In 1994, the claimant, an athlete, was suspended from an international competition by the British Athletic Federation (“BAF”) after failing a drugs test. The test was carried out by a Portuguese laboratory accredited by the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”). The relevant testing regime and procedures were governed by world governing body for athletics—the International Amateur Athletics Federation (“IAAF”). The claimant was suspended and prevented from competing at that year’s Commonwealth Games. In October 1994, she attended a BAF disciplinary hearing at which she was found to have committed a doping offence, but this finding was subsequently overthrown some months later by an Independent Appeal Panel (“IAP”). In 1996, Modahl instigated legal proceedings based on breach of contract and claiming from the defendant damages and interest for loss and damage suffered during her period of suspension, arguing (i) a breach of contract by allowing her urine sample to be tested at different and unaccredited laboratory premises, and (ii) a breach of contract by way of certain members of the disciplinary panel showing actual or likely bias against her. As it transpired, both limbs proceeded separately. The first, which was ultimately dismissed by the House of Lords, centred on the accreditation status of the laboratory which tested the claimant’s sample and whether the BAF should be directly and contractually liable for any maladministration in the drug testing regime carried out under IAAF/IOC regulations. The second limb, which was ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal, concerned the issue of bias in sports disciplinary processes and also discussed the contractual nexus between an athlete and their national governing body.