Appeal Panel

A v. County Association B & Table Tennis England

An individual member of TTE, A, sought to appeal against the decisions of County Association B – first to suspend him from, and then to terminate, his election as a representative official of B.

The principal ground of appeal was that B had no power to do so. A also made allegations of procedural impropriety and bias. A also sought to appeal the actions of Table Tennis England in relation to the decisions of B.

Each of A’s three appeals was dismissed. The Appeal Panel found that B did have the power to suspend and subsequently terminate A’s appointment. The Appeal Panel considered that the procedure followed by B was fair and that there was no evidence of bias. The Appeal Panel also found that TTE had acted appropriately in the circumstances.

Club Z v. District Association X and County Association Y

Club Z’s proposal, at the start of the season, to re-allocate its members between teams so as to place its “best” players in the team in the highest division in which the Club’s teams participated was rejected by District Association X. That decision was upheld on appeal to County Association Y.

Club Z’s appeal to the TTE Appeal Panel was allowed on the basis that the decisions of the County Association and District Association were each reached in a way which was contrary to their respective rules and constitutions, and they were therefore Improper for the purposes of the TTE Regulations on Appeal.

Club A v Committee X and Club B

Club A was sanctioned by a TTE league committee for failing to fulfil an away fixture with Club B, which had cancelled the match when it erroneously thought Club A was not going to attend.

Club A’s appeal to the TTE Board of Appeal was allowed on the basis that the Committee had erred in law in regarding that as resulting from a default under the rules by Club A.

A club appealed against a Table Tennis England Board decision that “If a League in which prize money is offered on the basis of finishing is incomplete an objective ranking order will be established, in conjunction with the management committee for the relevant event, on a points- per game ratio.”

The grounds of appeal were that the decision was substantively unreasonable.

The Board of Appeal ruled that the club had not demonstrated that the Board decision was substantively unreasonable and therefore the appeal was dismissed.

In this case, a player sought to appeal a decision of his County Table Tennis Association that he be sanctioned with a ban from playing in all leagues in that County until July 31, 2021. This sanction was as a result of his conduct during a match and was an increased sanction from that originally imposed by the player’s League.

The grounds of appeal were: The process by which the original sanction was replaced was unfair; the player’s lack of awareness of or involvement in that process was unfair; and that the sanction was excessive.

The Board of Appeal upheld the appeal on all three grounds and quashed the sanction imposed by the County.

In this case a player sought to appeal from a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of his County Table Tennis Association that he be sanctioned with a 3 match suspension as a result of his abusive conduct during a match.

He sought to mitigate his misconduct by reference to his lengthy good record and submitted that the suspension was too harsh and that lesser sanctions were available and more appropriate.

However, he did not claim that the Disciplinary Committee breached the applicable rules and put forward no grounds (as required in the TTEBA’s “appellant’s form” on its website) to show that its decision was manifestly irrational or outside the bounds of its reasonable discretion.

As it is a cardinal principle that the TTEBA cannot simply re-exercise the function of the decision-making body appealed from, the appeal was dismissed.

This case concerned a match in a local league match that went un-played and the decisions of the league as to the deemed result for arriving at the season’s final table.

The county association had allowed an appeal by one of the players in the team against whom the result was awarded by the league, on the grounds that the league had not followed its own rules.

The league then again decided the result against the Appellant’s team, allegedly in further breach of its rules, and the county association took no action.

The Board of Appeal remitted the matter to the county association with directions as to what steps it should take to ensure that the league complied with its rules, and subsequently received a report that this had been done.

Article 35.4 of the Articles of Association of TTE requires an Affiliated Organisation to affiliate to the most geographically appropriate County Association ‘unless exempted by the [TTE] Board’.

An Affiliated Organisation (‘the AO’) wished to change its affiliation from one County Association (‘the existing CA’) to a different County Association (‘the proposed CA’. In accordance with Article 35.4, the AO sought permission from the TTE Board to do so, and gave reasons why it should be permitted to do so.

The existing CA objected to the AO’s request to change its affiliation to the proposed CA. The existing CA presented reasons to the TTE Board why the AO’s request should be rejected.

The TTE Board subsequently voted to allow the AO to cease its affiliation to the existing CA and to instead affiliate to the proposed CA.

The existing CA appealed the TTE Board’s decision to the Board of Appeal. The parties to the appeal (the existing CA and the TTE Board) agreed that the Board of Appeal should determine the appeal without a hearing and on the basis of such written representations and evidence as the parties wishes to present in accordance with directions given by the Board of Appeal. Representations and evidence were received by the Board of Appeal from the existing CA and from the TTE Board.

Having considered the representations and evidence received from the parties, the Board of Appeal determined that the existing CA’s appeal should be dismissed. The TTE Board had not exercised the discretion given to it under Article 35.4 arbitrarily or without good reason. The TTE Board had had available to it all relevant material which the AO and the existing CA wished it to consider. There was no reason to believe that the TTE Board had ignored or not considered that material. The decision reached by the TTE Board was one which it was permitted to reach on the evidence before it; that decision was one that a reasonable board in the position of the TTE Board, properly exercising its discretion, could properly have reached.