Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new evidence attached to the cross-appeal by the Respondent (the Appellant on Cross-Appeal and the Applicant before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT) was not admissible. On the receivability of the cross-appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not receivable since the Respondent was the prevailing party at the first instance level and he does not claim to broaden the order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, but just to maintain it by means of an additional argument that has already been rejected by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its judgment, although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT differed in its reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s contention about the quantum of compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminary denied the Appellant¡¯s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided to strike out the Appellant¡¯s additional submission and not to take it into consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Standing Committee¡¯s decision which was in full accord with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was neither entitled to an increase in his pension benefit nor to a retroactive payment for the period of his reemployment as there is no legal basis for retroactive payment of these...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...