New Frontiers in Sports Arbitration - 39 Essex …...PAUL J. HAYES BARRISTER-AT-LAW New Frontiers in...

PAUL J. HAYES BARRISTER-AT-LAW

Paul J Hayes

Barrister-at-Law

Thirty Nine Essex Street

London, Singapore & Kuala Lumpur

KLRCA Seminar, Kuala Lumpur

24 April 2014

New Frontiers in

Sports Arbitration


Overview

Exploring the new frontiers in sports arbitration�

I. Sports Arbitration and Sporting Disputes

II. The New Frontiers

III. Rising to the Challenges of the New Frontiers

New Frontiers in Sports Arbitration


New Frontiers in Sports ArbitrationGlossary of Abbreviations• ADRV Anti-Doping Rule Violation• AHD Ad-Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Olympic Games)• ANOC / NOC Association of National Olympic Committees / National Olympic Committee• ATP Association of Tennis Professionals• CAS Court of Arbitration for Sport• CAS Code Court of Arbitration for Sport Code of Sports-related Arbitration• FCPIL Federal Code on Private International Law 1987 (Switzerland)• FIFA Federation Internationale de Football Associations• GAIF General Association of International Federations• ICADS International Convention Against Doping in Sport 2005• ICAS International Council of Arbitration for Sport• ICC International Cricket Council• ICSS International Centre for Sport Security• IF International Sports Federation• IOC International Olympic Committee• KLRCA Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration• NF National Sports Federation• NADO National Anti-Doping Organisation• NGs National Governments• NSC National Sports Council of Malaysia• NZSDT New Zealand Sports Dispute Tribunal• OC / OGs Olympic Charter / Olympic Games• OCM Olympic Committee of Malaysia• RF Regional Sports Federation• SDRCC Sports Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada• SDRP Sports Dispute Resolution Panel (United Kingdom)• SFT Swiss Federal Tribunal• WADA / WADC World Anti-Doping Agency / World Anti-Doping Code


I. Sports Arbitration and Sporting Disputes

For good or bad, few passions are as widely and as profoundly shared around the

globe as the passion for sport. Its symbolism is often awesome. It brings out the

noblest human qualities (good sportsmanship, the quest for excellence, a sense of

community), and the basest (chicanery and mob violence). It is also big

international business. Its capacity to motivate vast populations is nothing less

than fabulous, and so naturally exercises a powerful attraction on those who would

use its magic for their own ends.

The appetite for political influence and for money moves the heart inside the

business suit with a force as primal as that of the dreams of glory that swell the

distance runner’s tunic. In a word, the realm of sport is that of a precious

commodity. Therefore it is coveted. It is also an internationally significant resource

which can be squandered or debased. Therefore the way it is controlled is not

indifferent. And at the heart of the issue of control is that of ultimate authority to

establish norms and settle disputes.

- Jan Paulsson (Court of Arbitration for Sport, Panel Arbitrator, 2006).



I. Sports Arbitration?

• What is sports arbitration?

Sports arbitration is the private adjudication of ‘sporting

disputes’.

• Sports arbitration has been principally conducted by the Court ofArbitration for Sport (‘CAS’) since its foundation in 1984, after the ideaof an international sports tribunal was first conceived in 1981 by thenIOC President, Juan Antonio Samaranch, in response to the growth inthe number of sports-related disputes at a time when sport (especiallyOlympic sport) was becoming more international and professional.

• The CAS is an international arbitration tribunal which determinessporting disputes by producing arbitral awards which are legally bindingupon parties to a ‘sporting contract’ (ie. Athletes and Clubs/NFs/NOCsand by association IFs and the IOC) in accordance with the New York

Convention 1958. It is permanently seated in Lausanne, Switzerland.



I. International Sport: The ‘Sporting Contract’

• Most sporting contests are private events. Participation in internationalsport (ie. the Olympic Games (‘OGs’)) is governed by the law ofcontract: a series of umbrella agreements, which incorporate byreference, the Olympic Charter (‘OC’), WADA Code (‘WADC’) and therules/regulations of each Olympic IF, which in turn through disputeresolution clauses, establish the jurisdiction of the CAS. For example,OGs participants are bound to the IOC (and OC) by NOC TeamAgreements (which regulate on & off field conduct, doping, social mediause, sponsor obligations, etc and contain CAS arbitration clauses).

• Sports rules must be clear and predictable, properly made and becapable of understanding by athletes (Quigley v UIT, CAS 1994 at [34]), ‘sothat the entire sport community are informed of the normative system inwhich they live, work and compete and the circumstances in whichthese rules apply’. (USOC v IOC & IAAF, CAS 2004 at [73]. Cf. Anderson & Ors v

IOC, CAS 2010 and USOC v IOC, CAS 2011 at [8.9]-[8.19]).




Local Sports Clubs & Organisations

NOCs

I. Legal Structure of International [Olympic] Sport

IOC

(Olympic Games)

National Governments (NGs)

National Governments (NGs)

Athlete

IFs(World C’ships)

IFs(World C’ships)

NFs

(National C’ships)

NFs

(National C’ships)

LEGEND:

Contract (Private)

Legislation (Public)

Standard arbitration

(CAS) , anti-doping

(WADC) and other key

‘Olympic’ clauses are

included in agreements

between the IOC and

NOCs/IFs and are then

passed on in sub-

agreements with

NOCs/NFs and

ultimately the Athlete

(through a membership

or competition

agreement), via the

‘umbrella’ contractual

structure of most sports

agreements (ie.

incorporation of such

terms by reference, by

which each sub-ordinate

party agrees to be

bound).

National legislation (enacted as a

consequence of NGs signing international

conventions) addressing issues such as

anti-doping (ie. ICADS 2005), sports

integrity and sports administration also

regulate an individual’s or group’s means

of sports participation.



I. What are sporting disputes?

• Sport? A highly organised social activity comprised of personsvoluntarily playing ‘games’ in accordance with an agreed set of rulesto produce an outcome which results in a ‘winner’ of the game.

• Sporting Disputes? A distinct body of regulatory and case lawunique to ‘sport’ (ie. Eligibility; Selection; Game Rule; Doping; Onand Off-Field Conduct; Integrity). A jus ludorem (law of games) orlex sportiva. Genesis in the early 1980s. Cf. lex mercatoria?

• What are not ‘sporting disputes’: Legal actions primarily founded incontract, tort, or public law which involve sport, which are curiallydetermined, save those disputes arising under the ‘sporting contract’itself.

• ‘Sports law’ spans private and public, domestic and internationallaw. Is primarily international in character, given the dominant rolesof the IOC, WADA, IFs & NFs (regulation) and the CAS (case law).



I. The Court of Arbitration for Sport: History

• 1984: IOC establish the CAS to address the rise in the number ofinternational sporting disputes.

• 1994: Paris Agreement and the establishment of ICAS (20 members)post Gundel (Swiss Federal Tribunal ‘SFT’). Primary function of ICASis to oversee the operation of the CAS and to safeguard itsindependence (IOC, ANOC, GAIF, Athlete and Independentrepresentatives – rolling appointment system). ICAS Statutes & CASCode of Sports-related Arbitration (‘CAS Code’).

• 1996: First Olympic Ad-Hoc Division (‘AHD’) of the CAS.

• 2012: Establishment of CAS regional office at the KLRCA.

• The CAS is the pre-eminent specialist international jurisdiction for thedetermination of sporting disputes. Final court of ‘merit’ appeals. Over200 CAS arbitrators world-wide hear approximately 300 cases perannum (ranging from doping to football transfer cases).



I. CAS: Jurisdiction

• The CAS derives its ultimate jurisdiction from dispute resolutionclauses in the ‘sporting contract’ and also under OC, Arts 15(4), 59and WADC Art 22.3, which in turn often import the CAS Code.

• CAS seat in Lausanne, SUI (lex arbitri), although arbitrations can beconducted world-wide (Cf. lex loci). Awards enforceable under theConvention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral

Awards, New York, 1958.

• CAS independence upheld by the SFT in Lazutina and Danilova v

IOC, FIS and CAS in 2003. Limited grounds of review. Cf. Hondo vWADA and Canas v ATP in 2007.

• Swiss arbitral supervisory jurisdiction. See SFT Decisions: A v FCB& FIFA (2010); Valverde v WADA & Ors (2011); Matuzalem v FIFA

(2012) and Federal Code on Private International Law 1987 (SUI),Arts 190 & 191.



I. CAS: Structure and Core Procedure

• The CAS is comprised of: Ordinary Division (CAS Code, R38-46) and theAppellate Division CAS (CAS Code, R57-59) (See also: CAS Code, S20-22).

• CAS Arbitrators (1 or 3) can only be appointed from those Arbitratorswho are members of the CAS Panel [appointed by ICAS, renewableevery 4 years] (CAS Code, S3, S13-19, R40, 50) and who must remain

independent (CAS Code, S18 R33-36).

• CAS proceedings are conducted confidentially, but unless the partiesotherwise agree, CAS Awards are published in the public arena (CAS

Code, Rules S19, R43, 46, 59).

• Appeal hearings are conducted ‘de novo’ (CAS Code, R57).

• Costs? CAS costs. Parties’ costs discretionary: complexity; outcome;and financial resources of the parties, are considered (CAS Code, R64-65).


I. CAS in 2014 – 30 years onA

• The past decade has witnessed adramatic increase in the number ofsporting disputes filed with the CAS.

• Despite its original aspiration to offer‘low cost and rapid action’ andconsistency in the determination ofsporting disputes (Reeb, 2006), CAS hasbecome expensive (CAS Code, R64-65),procedurally slower (in part due to thegreater complexity of sportingdisputes) and to some degree,weighed down by its own success.

• CAS continues to successfully operateits AHD at OGs.


CAS STATISTICS

1986: 2 cases1995: 13 cases2002: 86 cases2003: 109 cases2004: 271 cases2005: 198 cases2006: 204 cases2007: 252 cases2008: 313 cases2009: 275 cases2010: 298 cases2011: 365 cases2012: 374 cases


I. The International Sporting Economy

• The current professional era of sport was entrenched when the IOCultimately permitted professional athletes to compete at the OGsfollowing the 1988 Seoul OGs. As a consequence, the past quarter ofa century has witnessed a phenomenal increase in the prominence ofsport in the international community, not just socially, but also politicallyand commercially. Participation rates in sport at all levels has neverbeen greater. Media interest in sport is at an all-time high.

• In a recent survey conducted by PwC, global sports revenue in 2015was estimated to top USD$145.0 billion dollars (PwC, 2011). The FIFA2010 World Cup was watched on television by approximately 3.2billion viewers (or 42.6% of the world’s population) (FIFA, 2010).

• As the ‘Asian century’ now gains momentum, sport’s biggest growthmarket (participants and sports-business) is Asia. Consistent with thistrend is Malaysia’s increased competitiveness in international sport.



II. The Six New Frontiers

The six new frontiers of international sports arbitration�

Sports Integrity

Enforceability of CAS Awards

An accessible core of sports jurisprudence: lex sportiva

Increased international sports regulation (ie. WADC 2015)

More commercial sports arbitration

The evolution of the CAS into an appellate tribunal?



II. Sports Integrity (Match-Fixing, Gambling) [1]

• Sport is now big business. Massive increase in ‘sports betting’. Sportsoften rely on the revenue streams generated by gambling, for funding.

• International Centre for Sport Security (‘ICSS’), Doha (QAT), comprisedof representatives from Interpol, IFs, Olympic Family, Athletes & ‘SportsBusiness’, established in 2011. ‘Securing Sport’ conference held inDoha, Mar 2013 (400+ delegates from the sport movement). IOCsummit establishes special integrity unit in Lausanne, Nov 2013. FIFA,ATP & ICC have also recently established their own integrity units.

• Addressing corruption in the sport. Sport: private. Detection:private/public. Prosecution: public/(private). International Convention?(Cf. ICADS).

• CAS: Oriekhov (2011) [Football]; Koellerer (2012) Savic (2012)[Tennis]; Fusimaholi & Ors (2012) [Football Admin, FIFA WC]; Asif(2013), Butt (2013) [Cricket]. Complex cases. Heavy sanctions.



II. Enforceability of CAS Awards? [2]

• Recent increase in the number of CAS Awards being challenged in theSFT.

• Grounds of review under Article 190 of the Federal Code on Private

International Law 1987 (SUI):

- Irregular constitution of the tribunal;

- Tribunal erroneously seizes jurisdiction;

- Tribunal rules beyond scope of arbitration, or fails to address issuesubmitted for arbitration;

- ‘audi alteram partem’ rule and equality of the parties not respected;

- Award is incompatible with Swiss public policy (Cf. ECHR).

• SFT: Valverde (2011); Matuzalem (2012); SCB Ice Hockey AG (2012).

• Pechstein (Landersgericht, GER, 2014). Athletes ‘voluntarily’ submit toCAS arbitration? Separable sports arbitration agreement enforceable?



II. An accessible body of sports jurisprudence [3]

• On of the great frustrations of sports lawyers world-wide, in seeking tostay appraised of a rapidly emerging body of sports jurisprudence(CAS Awards and international regulation), has been the absence of acentral and navigable repository of such resources.

• No stare decisis in the CAS jurisdiction, but comparable well-reasoned CAS Awards (derived from strong panels) are ofconsiderable persuasive value in CAS arbitrations and promote theconsistent application of international sports principles or lex sportiva.

• ‘Access to justice’ and fairness not only encompasses costconsiderations, but also access to the body of regulation and case lawwhich governs individuals’ participation in sport. Such access isfundamental to the ‘international rule of [sports] law’ which informs thenormative environment in which international sport is conducted.

• CAS now publishes Awards online, but still there is much to be done...



II. Increased International Sports Regulation [4]• Private regulation: WADC established in 2003. First revision in 2009.

Current revision due to take effect on 1 January 2015. Note furtherstrengthening of ‘athlete’s whereabouts’ requirements, investigationsand offences/defences relating to ‘non-analytical positive’ ADRVs.

• Public regulation: ICADS 2005, national domestic anti-dopinglegislation. (ie. Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2013

(AUS), sections 13A-D + ASADA Regulations 2013, Division 3.4(National Anti-Doping Scheme) – ‘disclosure notices’).

• Sports integrity regulation: Private/public, international/domestic.

• Sports contracts! Especially provisions relating to conduct (ie.‘disrepute’ off-field; use of social media; sponsorship; etc).

• The challenge for the Olympic movement, IFs and NFs is to ensurethat sports regulation remains clear and comprehensible to ‘non-lawyers’ – and for participation in sport to still remain enjoyable.



II. More ‘commercial’ sports arbitration [5]

• With international sports business estimated to be worth in excess ofUSD$145.0 billion dollars in 2015, it is inevitable that there will bemore commercial disputes arising from the ‘business of sport’ asopposed to the participation in and organisation of sport.

• While such disputes could be easily categorised with otherinternational (and domestic) commercial disputes, there exists realpotential for those arbitral institutions to efficiently, [confidentially] andexpertly service parties seeking determination/resolution of ‘sportsbusiness disputes’, which have a specialist sports capability, inaddition to the more conventional commercial expertise offered.

• CAS whilst having a ‘commercial’ capability within its remit, does notseem to exploit it (possibly due to the extent it is pre-occupied withconventional ‘sporting disputes’) – hence an opportunity for otherarbitral institutions, especially those which offer sports expertise�



II. A Changing Role for CAS – Appellate Body? [6]• Despite its admirable original objectives, the CAS has become

financially expensive and logistically challenging for both athletes andsports organisations. Is the CAS sustainable in its current form?

• CAS costs assessed under Rules 64.2 and 64.4 of the CAS Code(incl. the ‘CAS advance’), in addition to the filing fee payable hasmade CAS unaffordable for many, especially for those cases whichare complex and evidentially voluminous (ie. non-analytical positiveADRVs; sports integrity cases. Cf. Marinov v ASADA CAS (2007)).Such costs are compounded when incurred at a first instance CAShearing and are then incurred again at a CAS ‘appeal de novo’.

• Regional sports arbitration panels hearing ‘sporting disputes’ at firstinstance (with a limited right of appeal to CAS) could thrive if sportsarbitrations could be efficiently and affordably conducted (Cf. domestictribunals). A purely appellate role for the CAS? ‘Rehearing’ (with theopportunity to introduce new evidence not led at first instance)?



III. Successfully Exploring the New Frontiers

In the developing international sports environment, good sportsgovernance both internationally (IOC, IFs, WADA, etc) and domestically(NADOs, NOCs, NFs, RFs, Clubs) is paramount in ensuring positive andfavourable recognition and acceptance in the global sports community.This can be achieved through the implementation of:

• Broad reaching, efficient, transparent and accountable sportsstructures. Fair play off the field of play too!

• Simple, easy to understand, sports contracts.

• Education of sports officials and sports participants of their ‘sportscontract rights and obligations’.

• Central, independent sports arbitration bodies to expertly, efficientlyand affordably resolve regional ‘sporting disputes’ at ‘first instance’.

Malaysia, a regional sports leader?



III. A central regional sports arbitration body?

• A perfect fit for the KLRCA and its emerging role in the region.

• Establishment of a KLRCA sub-panel of specialist sports arbitrators.KLRCA Rules to include an Addendum (extra ‘sports specific’arbitration rules [to complement existing KLRCA Rules] andarbitration/submission clauses) to accommodate the specific needs ofarbitration of ‘sporting disputes’ for ‘national/international’ and‘professional’ athletes (ie. determination of ‘sporting disputes’ to beconducted efficiently and affordably – similar to CAS AHD OGs Rules).

• KLRCA to conduct arbitrations of ‘sporting disputes’ at first instance(Note: CAS appellate role for WADC, OC/NOC ‘sporting disputes’). Cf.NZSDT (NZL); SDRCC (CAN); UKSDRP (GBR); etc. KLRCA alsodevelops and operates a specialist expertise in the arbitration ofcommercial (contractual) disputes relating to ‘sports business’ (specificsubmission agreements, confidential hearings, etc).




III. Malaysian Sports Arbitration Model?

‘SPORTS BUSINESS’ DISPUTES

Commercial [contractual] disputes arising from ‘sports business’ (ie. athlete/team sponsorship, athlete/agent, rights [broadcasting/gaming], major sporting events or competitions, sports facilities development & construction, sports services [administration, coaching, sports science], merchandise, team ownership, etc).

‘SPORTING DISPUTES’

Eligibility; Selection; Game Rule; Doping; On and Off-Field Conduct; Game Integrity (match-fixing; betting, etc).

De novo appeal to the CAS for national &

international athletes and sporting

bodies, pursuant to arbitration clause in

sporting contract. Seat: Lausanne,

Switzerland.

Hearing at first instance for

‘international’, ‘professional’ and local

athletes (and OCM, ADAMAS, NFs, etc),

pursuant to arbitration clause in

sporting contract and KLRCA Sports

Arbitration Rules’. Seat: Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia.

Regular commercial

arbitration hearing

conducted pursuant to

arbitration clause in

commercial contract , or a

specific submission

agreement, and the KLRCA

Rules. Seat: Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia.

Note: Hearings of CAS appeals

could still take place in Kuala

Lumpur, notwithstanding the

seat being located in Lausanne.

KLRCA Sports Arbitration Capability:

• Develop KLRCA Rules for arbitration of ‘sporting disputes’.• Addition of arbitrators to KLRCA Panel with sports arbitration

knowledge and expertise.• Promotion of KLRCA for regional sports arbitration (ie. ‘sports

business’ and ‘sporting disputes’).



III. Malaysian Sports Arbitration - Establishment

2. Establishment1. Commitment

Malaysian

Government

Olympic

Council of

Malaysia

Malaysian

National

Sports Council

Malaysian NFs

Anti-Doping

Agency of

Malaysia

Malaysian

Athletes

Obtain commitment to KLRCA sports

arbitration from key stakeholdersMalaysian

Government

OCM

NSC

ADAMAS

Malaysia NFs

FundingAgreement on

harmonised arbitration

clause referring first

instance ‘sporting

disputes’ to KLRCA to

be arbitrated in

accordance with the

KLRCA Sports

Arbitration Rules.

Appointment of additional KLRCA

Panel Arbitrators with sports

arbitration expertise/experience



III. The Final FrontierA

• The integrity of sport has never been more vulnerable than it is now inthe modern professional/commercial/political era: doping; match fixing;event/competition manipulation; misconduct; etc.

• The whole idea of ‘sport’ rests on a stable foundation of fairness andtransparency on and off the field of play. Accessible and effectivesports arbitration (internationally and domestically) continues to occupya vital role in ensuring fairness prevails in the sporting contest.

• The challenge for sports officials in the current international sportsregulatory environment is to ensure that not just the integrity of sportremains intact, but also integrity and efficiency is maintained in thelegal processes by which athletes’ participation in sport is governed.

Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire, it has the

power to unite people in a way that little else does.

- Nelson Mandela, 2000.


Thirty Nine Essex Street LLP is a governance and holding entity and a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number 0C360005) withits registered office at 39 Essex Street, London WC2R 3AT Thirty Nine Essex Street's members provide legal and advocacy services as independent, self-employed barristersand no entity connected with Thirty Nine Essex Street provides any legal services. Thirty Nine Essex Street (Services) Limited manages the administrative, operational andsupport functions of Chambers and is a company incorporated in England and Wales (company number 7385894) with its registered office at 39 Essex Street, London WC2R 3AT.

DATE:

24TH APRIL 2014 (THURSDAY)

TIME:

3.00PM – 5.00PM

VENUE:

KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL

CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION

ROOM A, 12 JALAN CONLAY,

50450 KUALA LUMPUR

The 30th of June 2014 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the foundation of

the Court of Arbitration for Sport (‘CAS’). This presentation will examine the

extraordinary development of international sports arbitration from the

foundation of the CAS in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1984, through to the

creation of the CAS regional office in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2012 and

beyond, by identifying the important political and legal landmarks which have

influenced the creation and rapid growth of this relatively new area of legal

practice and how this unique and exciting jurisdiction might evolve in the

years ahead – in the Asian century.

MARK YOURCALENDAR 24.04.2014MARK YOUR

NEW FRONTIERS INSPORTS ARBITRATION

2.30pm Registration

3.00pm New Frontiers in Sports Arbitration

by Mr Paul Hayes, Barrister & Arbitrator,

Thirty Nine Essex Street Chambers

4.30pm Q&A Session

Moderated by : Dato’ Low Beng Choo,

Vice President of the Olympic Council of Malaysia

5.00pm Refreshment

FOR ENQUIRIES, PLEASE CONTACT CHALEE NAI KIN, ASSISTANT MANAGER, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT UNIT AT +603-2142 0103 / [email protected]

FOR REGISTRATION, PLEASE FAX & EMAIL YOUR DETAILS TO +603-2142 4513 / [email protected] BY 22 APRIL 2014

PROGRAMME

MR PAUL HAYESPaul Hayes is a Barrister & Arbitrator and holds the degrees of Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from Queensland University

of Technology and Master of Studies (MSt) from the University of Cambridge, where he was also a Visiting Fellow

in 2005-2006 (Faculty of Law, Lauterpacht Centre for International Law). He also holds a Diploma of International

Commercial Arbitration (DipICArb) from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in London and is a Fellow of the

Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb).

Paul was called to the Bar in Australia (New South Wales) in 1990 and in England (Lincoln’s Inn) in 2005. He is a

member of 39 Essex Street (London, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore) and also practices in Australia as a member of

Dever’s List (Melbourne). Prior to commencing practice at the Bar, Paul worked as a Lawyer in Sydney with Allens

and Baker & McKenzie.

He practices predominantly in commercial & equity litigation/arbitration, sports law, defamation and international law

(public and private) and has appeared in a wide variety of cases (ranging from large-scale complex commercial

matters to defamation jury trials and sporting disputes) in multiple curial and arbitral jurisdictions.

Paul has published numerous journal articles and spoken at conferences throughout the world on a wide range of

legal topics. He is also the Founding Editor of the Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal (CCH Australia),

the Chair of the International Law Committee of Commbar (the commercial law association of the Victorian Bar), a

Senior Fellow in the Faculty of Law at the University of Melbourne and contributes Op-Ed articles from time to time

to The Australian and The Times in London on issues concerning the law and politics.

In 2013, Paul was appointed as Honorary Counsel for Sports Arbitration to the KLRCA.

DATO’ LOW BENG CHOODato’ Low Beng Choo is the Vice President of the Olympic Council of Malaysia (OCM) and is currently the Chair of

the OCM Legal Advisory & Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and the OCM Women & Sport Committee.

She obtained her degree in law with honours from the University of Malaya in 1982 and was subsequently admitted

as an Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya in January 1983 and has been in active private legal practice

since.

Dato’ Low has been actively involved in the Bar Council of Malaysia since 1996. She serves as an elected member

of the Malaysian Bar Council and on several Bar Council Committees. She is also a registered mediator of the

Malaysian Bar Council Mediation Centre and a Notary Public.

Dato’ Low was a national athlete in softball and netball. She is still actively involved in the sports community, holding

the positions of President of the Softball Confederation Asia (since 2010); Secretary-General of the International

Softball Federation (since 2009) and World Baseball-Softball Confederation (since 2013); Member of the Women &

Sport Commission of the International Olympic Committee; Chair of the Special Technical Committee of the Malaysia

Games (since 2007) and served as the Technical Delegate for the sport of softball at various South East Asian

(SEA) Games, Asian Games and Olympic Games; Served as a member of the Commonwealth Advisory Body on

Sport (CABOS) and was Deputy Chair until the expiry of her term in December 2012; and Member of the Sports

Advisory Panel to the Honourable Minister of Youth & Sport Malaysia.

New Frontiers in Sports Arbitration - 39 Essex …...PAUL J. HAYES BARRISTER-AT-LAW New Frontiers in...

Documents

Transcript of New Frontiers in Sports Arbitration - 39 Essex …...PAUL J. HAYES BARRISTER-AT-LAW New Frontiers in...