Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2022/022.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so. The investigators would have reached...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the simple issue arising in this appeal was whether it was appropriate and correct for the judge to have proceeded with the application for review of the contested decisions while the motion for recusal was pending. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the straightforward answer is that it was not.

An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings and is usually a difficult strategic choice for the party making the challenge. Such an application is made, typically, at the moment the party loses confidence in the judge. Its timing will depend on the circumstances. The...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT shared the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided that mistakes in the way the summary dismissal decision was communicated to the appellant did not affect the fact that the real decision had ultimately been taken by the competent person in the Commissioner-General and not by any delegated authority.

It was undisputed that Mr. Mohammad was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence produced against him after the re-opening of the investigation (two interviews of student B¡¯s mother and student B). However, neither in his appeal nor in his initial application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did he point out any...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant¡¯s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant. Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal. It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant has failed to discharge her burden and has not demonstrated that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any of the errors outlined in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. It concluded that the Appellant relitigated arguments that failed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal and expressed her general disagreement with the impugned Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision was a valid and lawful exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. It found that the Agency reviewed and considered the Appellant¡¯s request for telecommuting in accordance with the legal framework, i.e. Area...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that by the Commissioner-General had been ordered to take a new decision with respect to the staff member¡¯s request in view of the increase in his managerial and budgetary duties and responsibilities.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Commissioner-General had not been specifically ordered to upgrade his post or to grant him a special allowance; the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had deemed it to be within the discretion of the Commissioner-General to decide whether or not he should be compensated.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately. It found that in this way, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT on 12 August 2022. Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its determination.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that in accordance with the Area Staff Rules, which provided for the application of the last published interest rate up to and including the month immediately preceding payment to the calculation of a staff member¡¯s Provident Fund benefits. Given that the staff member made his request on 23 December 2020, the applicable legal instrument in the present case was PFS/19/2020 issued on 12 December 2020, and not PFS/20/2020 issued on 13 January 2021 as...