Modahl v. British Athletic Federation Limited

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. The key legal principles were: (1) terms will not be implied into a contract unless necessary in the factual and contractual context; (2) the IAAF Rules and Procedural Guidelines are part of the background for construing the BAF Rules; and (3) a national federation acting on a notification from the IAAF that an 'A' and 'B' sample tested positive is normally entitled to suspend and initiate disciplinary proceedings without being liable in contract simply because the analysing laboratory later proves not to have been formally accredited. The court held that it would be unreasonable to imply into the contract a strict requirement that foreign tests must be carried out only by formally accredited laboratories, particularly where the federation had no knowledge and was required by the IAAF procedures to act promptly (see IAAF Rule 55.11, Procedural Guidelines paras 1.2 and 8, and BAF Rule 24(14) and 24(22)).

Background and parties: Diane Modahl, an international athlete, was suspended by the British Athletic Federation ('BAF') following a positive drug test carried out in Portugal by the Laboratorio de Analises de Doping e Bioquimica ('LADB'). The BAF relied on notification under the IAAF Procedural Guidelines and BAF disciplinary rules. After an appeal to an Independent Appeal Panel the finding was set aside and she was reinstated. She sued the BAF for damages for breach of contract arising from suspension and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

Procedural history: The BAF applied to strike out the statement of claim under the Rules of the Supreme Court. Popplewell J refused the strike-out and ordered both the bias and accreditation issues to trial. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision on bias but allowed the appeal as to accreditation, holding there was no arguable case. Mrs Modahl appealed to the House of Lords.

Nature of the claim and issues: (i) Claim for damages for breach of contract constituted by the BAF Rules read against the background of IAAF Rules; (ii) Issues were whether two Disciplinary Committee members were biased (which is not before the House of Lords for final determination in this judgment) and whether the BAF was in breach by acting upon an analysis from a laboratory that was not properly accredited.

Court's reasoning: The House of Lords treated the IAAF Rules and Procedural Guidelines as background in construing the BAF Rules. It rejected the implication of a contractual term that the BAF must require that any foreign laboratory be formally accredited before suspending or initiating proceedings. The court emphasised the procedural regime under which national federations are required to act promptly on IAAF notification (see Procedural Guidelines para 8 and BAF Rule 24(14)), and that the committee's decision to suspend is not a final finding of guilt. Rule 55.11 and para 1.2 of the Guidelines permit departures from procedure to be disregarded unless they cast 'real doubt' on reliability; however, the court considered these provisions unnecessary to decide the strike-out because the BAF was entitled to act on the information provided and there was no allegation it knew or ought to have known of defects in accreditation. Given those facts, implying strict liability for accreditation breaches would be unreasonable and expose the federation to potentially large damages for carrying out its duties under the IAAF system.

Wider context: The court noted the draconian nature of the IAAF anti-doping regime and accepted that occasional injustices may occur, but regarded the system of prompt suspension followed by discipline as justified in the wider interests of the sport.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that it was not appropriate to imply into the contract between the athlete and the BAF a term that the BAF must not suspend or initiate disciplinary proceedings unless the laboratory was incontrovertibly accredited; the BAF was entitled to act on notification under the IAAF Procedural Guidelines and there was no allegation it knew or ought to have known of any defect in accreditation.