STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION — plaintiff seeking to quash a notice under s 62(1) of the Combat Sports Act 2013 (NSW) made by the NSW Combat Sports Authority — plaintiff is organiser of an event scheduled to be held on 12 September 2026 — whether the event involves a “combat sport” and is therefore a “combat sport contest” — whether the event would be excluded from the definition of “combat sport” by operation of clause 5(1)(d) of the Combat Sports Regulation 2014 (NSW) — whether the activity could properly be construed as being an “strike” or “hit” — consideration of the primary objective of the activity — summons dismissed
Quick Take
1The words 'strike' and 'hit' in the definition of 'combat sport' in Schedule 3 of the Combat Sports Act 2013 (NSW) are words of considerable breadth and encompass forceful bodily collisions between competitors, not only blows delivered by hand, fist or weapon; the legislative history discloses an intention to capture emerging combat sport disciplines from the outset.
2Where the rules of a sport require competitors to engage in physical collision and prohibit avoidance of contact, and scoring flows directly from the outcome of that collision, the 'primary objective' of each combatant is to strike or hit the other within the statutory definition, notwithstanding that the rules characterise the contact as a 'tackle' or frame scoring around 'momentum outcome'.
3The exclusion in cl 5(1)(d) of the Combat Sports Regulation 2014 (NSW) requires that all strike zones be 'fully protected' by protective material; equipment certified under World Rugby's body padding specification — which is designed only to prevent cuts and abrasions, not to attenuate impact injuries — does not satisfy that requirement, and 'substantial' compliance is insufficient where the regulation's plain language requires full protection.
