Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ms Rockcliffe filed an application for execution of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-807. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the crux of the matter for determination was whether Ms Rockcliffe¡¯s appointment to and her removal from, the Budget Working Group (BWG) in 2018 fell within the scope of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s order in the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had not explicitly addressed the issue of conflict of interest in its judgment, it impliedly rejected it by means of applying the law in force at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was egregious that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF re-submitted that the previous decision not to give Ms Rockcliffe...

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the award that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered ought to have been made. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Newland¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-820. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given that Mr Newland had already been paid Special Post Allowance, Hazard pay, and outstanding interest, the only questions requiring determination were whether he was entitled to payment of Rest and Recuperation (R&R), free tickets, and the relocation grant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Newland¡¯s claim that he was entitled to the payment of R&R was unsustainable, as it was not an accruable benefit or entitlement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Harris¡¯ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the finding by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that he had failed to meet his burden of proving that the assignment to work in Sector East was motivated by improper consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered the relevant facts and the applicable law in concluding that the Administration had followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal law of the Organisation in separating him for abandonment of post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant could not choose to ignore a lawful direction by the Administration to provide medical...

The Secretary-General appealed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the contested decisions to abolish Ms Nouinou¡¯s post, the consequent decision not to renew her two-year fixed-term appointment, and the refusal to re-assign her for two months under a zero-dollar incumbency, where she had been selected for a short-term position, were unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made a grave error in law in terms of the basic legal position, which defined the subject of the litigation before it and the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no administrative decision to terminate Ms Nouinou¡¯s contract prior to its expiration and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that all of the Appellant¡¯s grounds of appeal failed, except for his challenge to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA decision not to renew or extend the Appellant¡¯s limited duration contract beyond its final extension, for the simple reason that those several decisions to extend his contract advantaged him by adding, in total, six months to his contract. On the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-renewal or final extension, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA was justified in deciding not to renew or extend his employment, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA faced a massive financial shortfall...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent¡¯s claim to award costs, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not contest the decision to separate her from the Organisation, thus the SAB was not seized with her separation and her appeal on that issue was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims for compensation for pain, suffering, and medical expenses were beyond the scope of the case and therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the IMO Secretary-General¡¯s decision to place the Appellant on sick leave was based on sound medical evidence which was not rebutted at the time and that there was no basis to set aside that decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis...