Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal of Ms Salem. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural errors did not amount to an abuse of power. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that absent an abuse of power, the compensation for moral damages had to be vacated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal, rejected the cross-appeal, and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment in its entirety.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal by the staff member limited to the award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT set the compensation in lieu of reinstatement award by calculating the sum the Appellant would have received for the remainder of his two-year contract, less the amount he received as salaries from other employers during the same period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that in its assessment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was conscious of the Appellant¡¯s claims for loss of opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in view of...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/027. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to submit new evidence to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to consider that it...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT inferred that the Appellant claimed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the legal conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT strike certain paragraphs from it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the text of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA found that the Appellant¡¯s evidence...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-363. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest...
The Appellant appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment failure to consider several points and to address compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the requisite grounds in his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not allow new claims to be raised on appeal when the circumstances giving rise to such claims were known to a party at the time and should have been presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision not to award compensation on the basis that there was no evidence in support of the Appellant¡¯s claim of psychological suffering. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was...
