Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member sought to...

The Tribunal held:

a. Some of the contested decisions were manifestly irreceivable as already determined by the Tribunal in Likukela Order No. 161 (NBI/2024) and Likukela Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/006. These matters would not be considered again by the Tribunal in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.

b. The claims regarding the alleged theft of the Applicant's wages, lack of a legal basis for recovery of her final pay and illegally withholding her final pay were not receivable ratione materiae for failure to file a timely request for management evaluation.

c. The claim alleging prevention of the payment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests ¡°to clarify¡± the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ABD¡¯s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order¡¯s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant had engaged in abuse of authority by intimidating a staff member to file a false complaint of sexual harassment against another staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT weighed the conflicting testimonies and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that she had a motive to solicit the false complaint.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant¡¯s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent¡¯s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...

In the present case, according to the Applicant¡¯s own submissions, he was not in a situation of ¡°an absolute impossibility¡± of filing a timely waiver as per Karki. Instead, while apparently being aware of expiry of the deadline, he continued to work intensely on preparing the application, and rather than giving priority to filing it in time, he instead wanted it ¡°to be perfect¡±. When then filing the application, the Applicant, however, made no reference to it being filed too late or indicating that he requested a waiver of the 90-day deadline under art. 8.3 of the Statute. He only requested a...

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae as (1) the record indicates that the Applicant did not submit a request for request for management evaluation to the Management Advice and Evaluation Section as required under staff rule 11.2; and (2) the contested decision had no direct effect on the Applicant, no external legal effect, nor any adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual employment rights.