Boxing case underscores courts' reluctance to interfere in decisions of national sporting bodies
In a recent bout in the High Court, the specificity of sporting disputes once again came to the fore. In Bruce Baker v British Boxing Board of Control  EWHC 2074 (QB), 25 June 2014, Sir David Eady was faced with the old chestnut of a request for a court to interfere with a national sporting body’s decision to sanction one of its participants. One interim application later, and the BBBC was still standing.
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Arbitration Act 1996 | Boxing | British Athletic Federation | British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC) | Cricket | England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) | Europe | European Boxing Union | European Commission | Governance | Regulation | Specificity of Sport
- Hallmarks of arbitration confirmed - England and Wales Cricket Board v. Kaneria
- Kaneria’s life ban upheld
- How financial regulation affects competition across Europe’s big five football leagues
- 2014 technical regulations for F1® racing have affected the competitive balance between factory and customer teams
Ravi is a barrister practising at Blackstone Chambers, with experience of sporting disputes before a variety of tribunals, including Rule K Arbitral Tribunals, Disciplinary Tribunals, Employment Tribunals and the High Court. He has assisted on cases for the Football Association and the Lawn Tennis Association, as well as on cases concerning individuals facing disciplinary charges or challenging selection decisions. He has also advised players, agents, representative bodies and sporting authorities on a wide range of issues.