Alanah Yukich v Australian Athletics

Non nomination Appeal for the 2026 Commonwealth Games.

Downloads

Alanah Yukich v Australian Athletics

Matter number:
NST-E26-641
Date of decision:
Dispute type:
General
Selection & Eligibility
Dispute resolution method:
Arbitration
Description:

The Appellant, Alanah Yukich, is an athlete and member of the Respondent, Australian Athletics, the National Sporting Organisation for athletics in Australia.

On 5 June 2026, the Respondent lodged an application with the National Sports Tribunal (NST) following the Appellant’s non‑nomination for the Women’s 400 metre hurdle event and the Mixed 4 x 400 metre relay event at the 2026 Commonwealth Games (the Games) to be held in Glasgow, Scotland. Four Interested Parties were joined to the proceedings. 

The nomination and selection of athletes for the Games is governed by the Team Nomination, Selection and Appeals By-Law (the By-Law) and the Australian Athletics Nomination Policy - 2026 Commonwealth Games, Glasgow, Scotland (the Policy). 

The Appellant submitted that the Selection Committee failed to properly apply the Policy, placing undue reliance on an alleged decline in her recent performances and failing to properly assess her 2026 results, personal circumstances, and commitment to team events. She argued this reflected an incorrect or unreasonable assessment of the data, leaving no material basis for her non-nomination.

Australian Athletics submitted that its Selection Committee exercised its discretion in accordance with the Policy, having regard to the aim of selecting the most competitive team and the factors in clauses 3 and 5.23, including performance, results, relay splits, and future potential. It maintained that all relevant matters were considered, including the Appellant’s circumstances, and that its decision was reasonable.

An oral hearing was held on 15 June 2026.

On 16 June 2026, the NST Panel dismissed the appeal, finding that the Selection Committee exercised its discretion reasonably, in good faith, and in accordance with the Policy, and that there was a material basis for the Appellant’s non-nomination.