Garriock V Football Federation Case Study

In Garriock v Football Federation Australia, the material facts were the Football Federation of Australia (the Federation) offered Ms Garriock a place on a tour to the United States of America in 2013 (the tour) to represent the Australian national side (the Matildas)2. Ms Garriock was given short notice that she was required to travel to the USA3. Ms Garriock is the primary carer to her daughter Kaizen, who at the time of the tour was 11 months old, and therefore was required to find alternative carer arrangements4, ultimately Ms Garriocks mother came along on the tour to provide care for her daughter, which came at a cost of $42595. Ms Garriock asked the Federation to pay for the costs necessary for the care of Kaizen, however, the Federation refused to do so6.
Ms Garriock

The requirement was that when undertaking the tour, the players were responsible for providing any carer arrangements that were needed during the tour and the costs of the carer arrangements (the Requirement)9. Ms Garriock argues that all players who signed a contract to play on tour for the Matildas were also required to comply with the requirement. Ms Garriock references Mr Freeme’s response to her initial email to the Federation requesting assistance with the costs for bringing a carer with her on the Tour, effectively required her to comply with the Requirement10. Ms Garriock also contends that this same email from Mr Freeme, along with his testimony, confirms that the Federation did not just require Ms Garriock to comply with the Requirement, but it was in fact a general rule which all player on the Tour were required to comply with11. Ms Garriock submits that considering none of the other players on the Tour had carer responsibilities is not a legal drawback to her claim, in support of her argument she cited Hurst v State of Queensland [2006] FCAFC