Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether it had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against interlocutory orders of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal, whether the impugned orders fell within the narrow exceptional category of appealable interlocutory decisions, and whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its powers in issuing the contested directions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that its role is not to intervene in case?management matters, but to determine whether an interlocutory order is exceptionally appealable because it is ultra vires, dispositive of an...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had ordered each party to nominate a psychiatrist, who in turn were to designate a third psychiatrist to review whether the staff member¡¯s mental condition at the time he committed the burglary, sentencing for which had been the grounds for his separation in the interest of the Agency.The Commissioner-General failed to comply with this instruction, without explanation, thereby leaving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT with no medical information about AAW's condition at the time of the burglary.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Commissioner-General had clearly and manifestly abused the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT therefore held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, nor any finding by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding...