Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President¡¯s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on a website were matters of internal organisation which did not constitute acts adversely affective staff member¡¯s rights and, as such, did not constitute a challengeable administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any error of law or fact in rejecting his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the criterion for summary judgment was met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any legal or factual basis for his submission that the principle of audi alteram partem had been disregarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.