Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.
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...
After Mr. Yousef¡¯s appeal and the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal had been submitted, Mr. Yourself filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on the fact that an internal settlement had been agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and the Commissioner-General filed a motion to withdraw the cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT directed the Registrar to close the case.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable to the extent that it contested decisions taken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that the provisions in the GMIP were mandatory for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, that the GMIP does not include a provision with respect to retroactivity, and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA has no discretionary authority to enrol former staff members if this is not allowed in the contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the GMIP could not apply outside of its scope of application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on the law or the facts, and that the Appellant¡¯s...
Having decided that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,¡± as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Applicants¡¯ request for one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and no application had been made to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claim in Appellant¡¯s Appeal was not initially brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the Agency correctly decided not to transfer the Appellant to the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue of whether the Agency has an obligation to contact all staff members who made a transfer request is not receivable because it was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make such findings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/026, and remanded the issue of whether the Administration fulfilled...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the content of the Appellant¡¯s appeal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment, and the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that the Administration¡¯s decision not to confirm the Appellant¡¯s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...
