Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the judicial review tests under Article 2(1)(b) of its Statute. It found that the facts of misconduct were established by clear and convincing evidence, including direct testimony from refugees, corroborating documentary evidence, and hearsay, and that the former staff member had solicited bribes from refugees on multiple occasions between 2010 and 2019 in exchange for assistance with resettlement and other Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR services. It held that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct and that the sanction of dismissal was proportionate...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Slayyeh did not file a proper appeal of the impugned Judgment but rather was bringing a new claim for compensation that had not been submitted to the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not introduce on appeal an issue not previously presented to the first instance tribunal as it is a violation of the due process rights of the other party and does not comply with the two-tier system of administration of justice.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the remedies available under Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute allow the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to rescind the contested decision or order...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that as per ISA¡¯s Staff Rule the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has the competence to ¡°order an interim measure to provide temporary relief to either party to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the decision taken at the first instance level¡±. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also has jurisdiction to order interim measures in appropriate cases arising out of an ISA dispute as is the case in Mr. Hall¡¯s Motion.

However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Hall had failed to demonstrate that relief by way of interim measures was necessary to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the JAB¡¯s decision. Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the interview panel had nominated the staff member as one of the recommended candidates for appointment to the post but the Recruitment Report had been erroneously silent as to whether she had been considered on an equivalency basis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the advisory committee had subsequently found that her experience did not qualify her for equivalency and that she had not met the educational qualifications.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the staff member had been wrongly shortlisted, her participation in the remainder of the recruitment process had been unlawful and any...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the unexplained delay of almost a year in filing the request for interpretation would alone cause the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to reject it. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in addition, the request for interpretation lacked a jurisdictional basis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had demonstrated no equivocality or lack of clarity of the Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the request for execution relied on the staff member¡¯s success in having the earlier Judgment interpreted in the manner he sought and, therefore, his request for execution was moot. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Judgment had...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Agency had removed the disputed Note from the staff member¡¯s Official Status File and provided him with his requested certificate of service and performance evaluations. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal in the respective part had therefore become moot.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the issue were not moot, it was not persuaded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵWRA DT had exercised its discretion injudiciously or otherwise erred. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in its earlier Judgment it had found that the Agency had no obligation to partially execute that first Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred by failing to grant the remedy under Article 10(5)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute after it had found that the disciplinary decision was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by refusing to rescind the contested decision on the grounds that the staff member had abused the judicial process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for determination of the appropriate remedy.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the former staff member had manifestly abused the judicial process by filing forged documents before that Tribunal. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in the...

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...