Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had filed numerous and confusing claims and applications that had been the subject of various reviews by the Management Evaluation Unit, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, all of which essentially attempted to ensure that the Administration continued to pay her benefits for medical reasons after expiration of her fixed-term appointment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her submissions failed to identify in precise terms a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the so-called non-decisions or incomplete decisions identified by her were not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the transitional measure ¨C granting 10 weeks of special leave with full pay (SLWFP) only to mothers who were still on maternity leave on 1 January 2023 ¨C was not unlawfully discriminatory.

It found that, while it might be argued that preferring birth mothers over fathers in the transitional arrangements between the old and new parental leave regimes was discriminatory, it was not unlawfully discriminatory for two reasons: i) the desirability of breastfeeding in circumstances that are inconsistent with their mothers also working full...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the ABCC¡¯s 30-month delay in processing the claim for compensation was excessive. It found that a reasonable delay for decision-making in this claim would have been no more than 24 weeks. It held that the additional delay of 24 months and 13 days, without adequate explanation, was unlawful and violated the Administration¡¯s duty to treat the dependents of the deceased staff member fairly and reasonably.

With respect to the compensation awarded, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of six months¡¯ net base salary for moral harm. However, the...

The Appeals Tribunal analyzed the text of Appendix D, from the 1966 version, and concluded that: (a) widows are eligible to receive compensation at a rate of two-fifths of a deceased staff member¡¯s annual salary; (b) if the deceased staff member is survived by more than one widow, the compensation shall be split evenly between the widows; (c) all pension benefits paid through the staff member¡¯s Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF entitlement shall be deducted from the compensation paid under Appendix D; and the deduction shall not reduce the amount of Appendix D compensation otherwise payable to less than 10 per cent of...

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 noted the Applicant¡¯s persistence in raising previously rejected arguments.While no costs were awarded, the Tribunal warned the Applicant and his counsel against vexatious litigation, referencing similar cases and jurisprudence. The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

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...

Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.

As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant¡¯s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.

The...

interpreting medical reports to determine the cause and extent of medical disabilities is the essence of forensic medicine and the result is clearly a medical determination.

this argument seeks to have the Tribunal second-guess the Administration¡¯s finding that the X-ray camera did not fall on the Applicant¡¯s knee in 2017. That is beyond the purview of this Tribunal. In conducting a judicial review of an administrative decision, the Tribunal must defer to the Administration¡¯s factual findings and may not substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Moreover, it is clear from...