Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the only issue on appeal was the issue of appropriate compensation for the unlawful contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately found that the requested compensation in the amount of two years¡¯ net base salary was unwarranted as it would exceed the emoluments to which he would have been entitled absent the unlawful termination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in Mr. Kilauri¡¯s contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider the nature and level of the post he formerly occupied and the chances of renewal beyond the expiry of his fixed-term contract but for his unlawful...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation ¡°which he heard from another person who attended court¡± and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 ¡°does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member¡±. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

The Tribunal held that there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that any distress caused to the Applicant was a result of the failure to resolve the harassment complaint and therefore an essential link in the requirement to prove moral damages had not been established by the evidence. The Tribunal noted that the finding that there was abuse of power was not based on an administrative act which was part of the Applicant¡¯s application. The Applicant claimed that the delay was part of the harassment meted out by the Administration. However, she never provided evidence to link the...

The contested decision impacted the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It had a negative impact on the Applicant¡¯s legal situation vis-¨¤-vis his employer and on his ability to properly plan his professional life. It also altered the reason for the Applicant¡¯s separation from service from termination of contract due to abolishment of post to non-renewal. Consequently, the application is receivable ratione materiae.

There is no evidence confirming the alleged operational needs justifying the contested decision to keep the Applicant beyond 31 May 2021. There is enough...

The Tribunal found that with clear and convincing evidence, the Respondent only managed to establish that the Applicant intended to assert some, albeit ineffective, pressure on BM in the hiring process of daily workers. Under Sanwidi, the Tribunal found that the termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment was manifestly incorrect and led to a disproportionate outcome. The contested decision was therefore unlawful.

Considering its findings on the unlawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal found that the most appropriate remedy would be to rescind this decision (in comparison, see...

The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...

Regarding the applicable Appendix D to the present case, the Tribunal notes that in the current Appendix D (ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.1), it is stated that ¡°[f]or claims filed for incidents that occurred prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, the previously applicable rules will be applied¡± (see art. 6.1(b)). According to the Applicant¡¯s own factual submissions, whereas his compensation claim was submitted on 29 June 2018, it concerned incidents that occurred somewhere between 2015 and until his medical leave started in August 2017. The applicable Appendix D is therefore one...

Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment asking that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reverse the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman¡¯s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by failing to implement its mandatory obligation to award an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof that the contested decision caused a loss of income due to loss of career opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not discharge his onus to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred as the first instance trier of fact with regard to the issue of moral damages, and therefore accepted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on compensation for moral...

The deadline for the Applicant¡¯s request for compensation for any alleged irregularity in the handling of his complaint of misconduct started on 27 June 2019 when he was notified of the outcome of the complaint. The 27 June 2019 notification rendered the decision resulting from the Applicant¡¯s complaint final and therefore reviewable under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Consequently, the notification date starts the clock running for any challenge of such administrative decision. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant had 60 days to request management evaluation of the contested...