Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable as the Appellant had partially prevailed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and was entitled to file an appeal to pursue the modification, annulment, or vacation of the impugned judgment. Noting that the crux of the matter before it was the issue of the exchange rate used to calculate the repatriation grant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the correct rate was applied because the applicable rate was that which applied on the date of receipt of the proof of relocation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of fact or law. On the Appellant¡¯s claim for interest on her repatriation grant for the period of delay, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT declined to award interest because the Appellant had already received a payment greater than she would have received if she had been paid in a timely fashion (a year before) with interest, and therefore the Appellant did not suffer any material damage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to differ from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion on interest on the basis that findings of fact of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT can only be disturbed when there is an error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, which was not the case. On moral damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error of law in its assessment of the compensation award, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found to be fair and reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual finding on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.