Modahl v British Athletic Federation Limited

A sporting federation does not breach its contractual rules by suspending an athlete and commencing doping proceedings upon official notification that two samples tested positive, merely because the foreign laboratory may have lacked accreditation. The rules must be construed within the international regulatory scheme, which requires prompt action at this preliminary stage.

The federation need only consider that there is evidence that an offence may have occurred. It does not then determine the accuracy of the test or make a finding of guilt. A procedural departure affecting laboratory accreditation concerns the validity of a later finding and becomes material only if it casts real doubt on the test's reliability.

An international athlete was suspended by the British Athletic Federation after the International Amateur Athletic Federation reported positive results from tests of her urine samples. A disciplinary committee found her guilty of doping, but an independent appeal panel set that decision aside because the reliability of the laboratory test was subject to reasonable doubt.

The athlete claimed damages for breach of the contract constituted by the federation's rules. She alleged, among other matters, that the federation had improperly acted upon results from a Portuguese laboratory whose accreditation had allegedly been vitiated by its relocation. Popplewell J refused to strike out that allegation. The Court of Appeal held that it disclosed no arguable case, although it permitted a separate allegation of bias to proceed.

The issue before the House was whether the contractual rules permitted suspension and disciplinary proceedings based on positive results from a foreign laboratory whose accredited status was disputed.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Hoffmann delivered the leading speech. Lord Irvine of Lairg LC, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Clyde and Lord Millett agreed with his reasons.

2. Per Lord Hoffmann, the rules did not contain an express requirement that testing undertaken abroad must be conducted by an accredited laboratory before the British federation could suspend an athlete or commence disciplinary proceedings. Although the international procedural guidelines required the use of accredited laboratories, a breach by the foreign federation did not, without more, give the athlete a contractual claim for damages against the British federation.

3. The international scheme required the federation to act promptly upon notification that the tests of both samples were positive. The domestic rule required suspension when the Drug Advisory Committee considered that there was evidence that a doping offence may have occurred. Suspension and commencement of proceedings involved neither acceptance that the laboratory report was accurate nor a finding that an offence had been committed. Official notification of positive results from both samples was normally sufficient to satisfy that preliminary threshold.

4. It would be inconsistent with the regulatory scheme to imply a term preventing the federation from initiating proceedings whenever an unknown act or omission had vitiated the foreign laboratory's accreditation. No allegation suggested that the federation knew or ought to have known of the alleged defect. Imposing potentially substantial damages when it had merely performed its duties under the international rules would be unreasonable.

5. Lord Hoffmann agreed with the Court of Appeal that the accreditation issue was a departure falling within the rule governing procedural irregularities. Such a departure would invalidate a finding only if it cast real doubt on the reliability of the result. That provision was not directly determinative, however, because the preliminary decision to suspend and commence proceedings was not a finding. The claim on accreditation was bound to fail and was properly struck out.

1. House of Lords: The athlete's appeal was dismissed unanimously. The Court of Appeal's order striking out the contractual claim based on laboratory accreditation was upheld.

2. Court of Appeal: The federation's appeal was allowed on the accreditation issue because the athlete had no arguable case. The decision permitting the separate bias allegation to proceed was upheld.

3. High Court: Popplewell J dismissed the federation's summons to strike out and ordered that the bias and accreditation allegations proceed to trial.