Access to justice too costly

THE legal duo of Matthew Gayle and Dr Emir Crowne, who are representing embattled TTFA (TT Football Association) president William Wallace and his executive members (deputies Clynt Taylor, Susan Joseph-Warrick and Joseph Sam Phillip), have accused the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) of an “apparent institutional bias” towards FIFA, the global governing body for football.

Wallace and his team were removed from office by FIFA on March 17, due to mounting debts, and a normalisation committee was set up, headed by businessman Robert Hadad.

As a result, Wallace, who replaced David John-Williams as TTFA president on November 2019, decided to appeal the matter to CAS.

In a letter to Antonio de Quesada, head of arbitration at CAS, the TTFA lawyers raised “very grave concerns over a number of irregularities which have arisen in these proceedings.

These irregularities have caused our clients to believe their right to a fair hearing has been impugned.”

The TTFA lawyers asked that one arbiter adjudicate in the matter, but FIFA insisted that three arbiters be appointed – a request which found favour with CAS.

Attorneys Gayle and Dr Crowne are also concerned over CAS’ desire to increase the legal costs from Wallace and his team. The TTFA were asked to pay the entire cost of arbitration (TT $277,000) in advance but FIFA would not spend a cent until the matter is heard.

With regards to the legal cost, the TTFA lawyers wrote, “No breakdown of this exorbitant fee was provided, particularly since the hearing would have likely taken place by video conference and the usual travel costs of the panel and the CAS’ counsel would have been eliminated.

“To that end, we are genuinely unsure how the CAS facilitates access to justice with such extravagant fees.”

Gayle and Dr Crowne expressed their displeasure in the breakdown of the arbitration costs. “The default rule in any fair and balanced arbitral proceedings is that the appellants and the respondents each pay 50 per cent of the advance costs.”

They wrote, “CAS appears to be a willing participant in (FIFA’s) gamesmanship, especially if the CAS has institutional knowledge that the respondent – an entity with immeasurable financial resources – would not be advancing their share of the arbitration costs, and especially since it was (FIFA) themselves who asked that the matter be heard before a three-person panel, thereby tripling the cost of the proceedings.

“This is, at least, an unacceptable display of apparent institutional bias.”

The lawyers revealed that FIFA issued a letter to the CAS indicating that their deadline to file their answer to the TTFA “be suspended until the appellants settle the entirety of the exorbitant arbitration fees.”

The lawyers mentioned that “CAS, once again, ruled that (FIFA) would be able to benefit from this extension.”

According to Gayle and Dr Crowne, “As it stands, there are very real doubts that the CAS remains an appropriate and fair forum for the resolution of this dispute.”