A waterpolo player's request for an injunction to stop a 12-match ban was dismissed by a court on Tuesday because the player failed to show how he would suffer irremediable prejudice by missing out on the matches.  

The request was made by San Ġiljan waterpolo player Ben Plumpton.

The ban was imposed by the ASA, waterpolo's regulatory authority, following a report by rival club Sliema that the player had bitten two of its players during a match on July 17. The ASA originally imposed a four-match ban, which was tripled on appeal.

Plumpton took the matter before the civil courts where his lawyers argued that the ASA’s appeals board acted beyond its powers.

The ASA defended its board and also pleaded that Pumpton's action was premature as he had not exhausted all avenues open to him before seeking the court injunction.

In Tuesday’s decree, Madam Justice Josette Demicoli declared that at this stage the court would not delve into the issue as to whether the board of appeal acted beyond its powers and scope. To do so would be touching upon the merits of the case. 

The right which Plumpton expected to safeguard and how that right translated into legal claims was “not at all clear,” observed the court. 

Moreover, the court was faced with two conflicting versions as to what happened before the board of appeal. Plumpton  failed to prove that “what he alleged had actually taken place.”  He had also failed to show how missing out on matches would in itself translate into personal irremediable prejudice, said the court.

Citing case law on the subject, Madam Justice Demicoli observed that the necessity of an injunction implied “something more than discomfort or difficulty.” 

The applicant must prove that kind of prejudice which could not be remedied except by means of an injunction.

Plumpton had failed to prove that prejudice, said the court, rejecting his request with costs. 

Lawyer Herman Mula is assisting the ASA. Lawyers Charles Mercieca, Carlos Bugeja and Ismael Vella are assisting Plumpton.