1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Equestrian Australia Appeal Tribunal published on 22 June 2012 dismissing an appeal by Hayley Beresford.

2. The appeal is to the Appeals Division of the Court of Arbitration of Sport and, pursuant to Rule 50 of the Rules, is to be heard by a sole arbitrator.

3. Before the Appeals Tribunal and this appeal to CAS the grounds of appeal were expressed to be against decision(s) not to nominate Hayley Beresford for the London team. The question of law in this appeal became not whether Hayley Beresford was wrongly excluded from the team but whether Kirsty Oatley was wrongfully included.

4. Kirsty Oatley is an interested party to this appeal and was represented by Mr Curtin. The Australian Olympic Committee was an interested party represented by Fiona DeJong who was present throughout the hearing.

5. Hayley Beresford's appeal from the Selection Panel was, in accordance with the Olympic Team Selection By-Law pursuant to the Australian Olympic Committee Rules was, by 11.5 limited to four grounds of appeal, namely:

(i) the applicable Nomination Criteria have not been properly followed and/or implemented;

(ii) the appellant was not afforded the reasonable opportunity by the NF to satisfy the applicable Nomination Criteria;

(iii) the nomination decision was affected by actual bias; or

(iv) there was no material on which the nomination decision could reasonably be based.

6. The appeal to CAS from the Appeals Tribunal was limited by clause 11.10 of the by-laws and was confined to:

(i) that there was a breach of the rules of natural justice by the Appeals Tribunal; or

(ii) that the decision of the Appeals Tribunal was an error on a question of law.