Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen¡¯s written request for an extension of time to file an application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a fact beyond her control, which prevented Ms. Matahen from exercising her right of appeal in a timely manner, such as to justify the granting of her request for a waiver of the time limit by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, under the specific circumstances of the case, the two-pronged reasoning of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that Ms. Matahen¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because she had not addressed her ¡°request for decision review¡± to the competent administrative authority, and also because eventually no such request had been filed by her, is unassailable. The appeal was dismissed.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ms. Matahen contested the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA not to grant her request for Early Voluntary Retirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT by its Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2021/019 dismissed her application as non-receivable ratione materiae because she had not submitted a request for decision review, which is a mandatory requirement under Area Staff Rule 111.2 for a staff member to bring his/her case to the Tribunal.
Legal Principle(s)
A party appealing a judgment of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT is unlikely to succeed in having the judgment reversed, modified or the case remanded to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT unless the appeal challenges the impugned judgment on one or more of the grounds referred to in Article 2(1)(a) to (e) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal. A staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision alleging non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or the contract of employment, including all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances shall, as a first step, submit a written request for a decision review. A staff member shall submit a request for decision review within 60 calendar days from the date on which the staff member received notification of the administrative decision to be contested (Area Staff Rule 111.2 (1) and (3)).