Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in fact in finding that the Appellants should have reasonably known all relevant facts of the contested decision by 31 March 2019 because the finding was based on an inaccurate and incomplete review of the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred finding the applications not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the cases to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT for additional findings of fact and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.