Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence to support the Appellant¡¯s allegations that the statements of her witnesses were used in their entirety by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and, even assuming that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had been in breach of its rules of procedure by making those statements, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had not been established that the said breach gave rise to an error in procedure liable to influence the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegation, that the staff member who recruited her gave her assurances liable to create a well-founded expectation of contract renewal, was not justified. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that the decision not to renew the contract was lawfully based on the evaluation of the Appellant¡¯s performance, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on questions on fact. On the Appellant¡¯s other claims on issues separate from the impugned decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that they had not been submitted for management evaluation and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not fail to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by dismissing them as non-receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision was lawful; however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded compensation for the damage resulting from the rebuttal panel¡¯s unreasonable delay in completing the rebuttal process.
Legal Principle(s)
A fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectancy of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. The burden of proving that the grounds for non-renewal were unlawful lies with the staff member contesting the decision. The burden of proving that the judge of the first instance erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, lies with the Appellant. It is the staff member¡¯s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ; ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse.