Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the staff member¡¯s application had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision to disable the fact-finding panel was superseded by its reconvening, after being impugned by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no reasonable or objective analysis of Mr Luvai¡¯s submissions to management, prior to his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, regarding his non-selection for the posts could lead to a conclusion that the revocation of his firearm licence was sufficiently linked to the non-selection decisions such as to deem the matter as receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in fact and law in deciding otherwise and that, in purporting to adjudicate on the revocation of Mr Luvai¡¯s firearm licence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to identify an administrative decision, having a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights, capable of being reviewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not challenging a specific administrative but had asked Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to overturn a policy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to interfere with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed and to meet his statutory burden of proving non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman¡¯s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal authority for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to commence the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...
As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General¡¯s answer and denied the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...
