蘑菇视频AT Held or 蘑菇视频DT Pronouncements
Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, 蘑菇视频AT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. 蘑菇视频AT held that 蘑菇视频DT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. 蘑菇视频AT upheld the appeal, vacated the 蘑菇视频DT judgment, and remanded the case to 蘑菇视频DT for consideration on the merits.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment as a result of a comparative review process and a retrenchment exercise. In May 2015, the staff member was sent a letter that unequivocally informed her of the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract. In June, the Applicant was sent another letter informing her that her fixed-term appointment would not be renewed. 蘑菇视频DT considered that the June notification affirmed and reiterated the previous decision from May. Accordingly, using the May date as the date from which the time for a challenge of that decision ran, 蘑菇视频DT dismissed the application on the grounds that it was not receivable (ratione materiae) as the Applicant had not submitted her request for management evaluation within the stipulated time limit.
Legal Principle(s)
An administrative decision will have the effect of triggering the running of a time limit if it is intended to have a final effect in the form of direct legal consequence on the rights and obligations of the staff member.