Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT order requesting information. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...

As to the appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order for expungement of the impugned documents from its case file, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was receivable because, unless the documents were preserved for use at trial, they might be lost with the consequence that the Secretary-General would be unable to use them to establish his allegations of forgery and fraud as he was entitled to. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order was, in this respect, effectively irremediable; that this would be a manifestly unreasonable consequence of the Order for the Secretary-General; and that the circumstances were so rare and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there is no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to allow the Appellant¡¯s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment asking that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reverse the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman¡¯s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

The Secretary-General filed appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that, generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an interlocutory appeal is receivable exceptionally in cases where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the management of cases. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that one of the goals of the new system of administration of justice is rendering timely judgments; cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could seldom proceed if either party were able to appeal interlocutory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Order No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/O/2010/023 by the Secretary-General. Applying the principle that a party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Order had no practical effect following the withdrawal of the request for suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was moot as it was academic and sought an opinion regarding the issues raised in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any alleged error by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in considering the merits was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.