A court on Tuesday dismissed the plea of a water polo player who sought an injunction to halt a 12-match ban. The player failed to demonstrate how he would suffer irreversible harm by missing the matches.
The request was submitted by Ben Plumpton, a water polo player from San Giljan.
The ban was imposed by the ASA, the regulatory authority for water polo, after a report from Sliema, a rival club, alleged that Plumpton had bitten two of their players during a match on July 17. The ASA initially imposed a four-match ban, which was tripled upon appeal.
Plumpton brought the matter before the civil courts, with his legal team arguing that the appeals board of the ASA had exceeded its authority.
The ASA defended its board and contended that Plumpton’s actions were premature since he had not exhausted all available options before seeking the court injunction.
Madam Justice Josette Demicoli, in her decree on Tuesday, stated that the court would not currently examine whether the board of appeal had acted beyond its authority and jurisdiction. Such an examination would delve into the merits of the case.
The court noted that Plumpton’s expected protection and how that protection would be legally enforced was unclear. Additionally, the court faced conflicting accounts of what occurred before the board of appeal. Plumpton was unable to provide evidence that supported his allegations. Furthermore, he failed to demonstrate how missing matches would result in significant and irreparable harm.
Referring to relevant legal cases, Madam Justice Demicoli stated that an injunction required more than just discomfort or difficulty. The applicant must prove a type of prejudice that could only be remedied through an injunction.
The court concluded that Plumpton had not proven such prejudice and therefore rejected his request, ordering him to pay the costs.
Lawyer Herman Mula is assisting the ASA, while Lawyers Charles Mercieca, Carlos Bugeja, and Ismael Vella are providing assistance to Plumpton.
