Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration¡¯s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant¡¯s written or oral submissions to persuade Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any error of law or fact in rejecting the application as premature. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legitimacy in the Appellant raising the merits of the case with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT as this had been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to reject the Appellant¡¯s application as premature. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no legal basis to proceed by way of summary judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the criterion for a summary judgment was met upon determination that the facts were clear and the only issue remaining, whether the contested decision was capable of being appealed, was a matter of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s proposition that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision to proceed by way of summary judgment offended the principle of audi alteram partem on the basis that his application was given due consideration by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.