Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/108 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/109 jointly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds applied in the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/108, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accepted the procedural flaws and ruled that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was not in conformity with his terms of appointment and rescinded the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not requiring his former supervisor to provide oral testimony to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had taken note of the Appellant¡¯s claim against the Office of Staff Legal Assistance and would consider and dispose of it in a separate judgment. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the discretion to determine the amount of damages awarded, taking into account the circumstances of the case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in the exercise of its discretion, including in its finding that the decision relating to commutation of his accrued annual leave days was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its judgments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the non-extension of his appointment and the non-transmittal of an inter-office memorandum received by the Appointments, Posting and Promotions Committee (APPC). In judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/108, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded the non-extension decision (providing as an alternative in lieu compensation) and found that the non-transmittal of the memorandum did not constitute an administrative decision and, as such, was not receivable. In judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/109, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT consolidated two applications related to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment, concluding that the Administration had conducted the Applicant¡¯s separation procedures in accordance with the rules and that his application relating to commutation of his annual leave was time-barred.
Legal Principle(s)
It is insufficient for an appellant to state that he or she disagrees with the findings of fact or to repeat the arguments submitted before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT; an appellant must identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made. The party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence and the weight to attach thereto. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the discretion to determine the amount of damages awarded, taking into account the circumstances of the case.