Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Harris¡¯ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent¡¯s claim to award costs, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to detect any fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the negative narrative comments and the performance appraisal itself constituted a reviewable administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the negative narrative comments detracted from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal of the Appellant and had present and direct legal consequences for the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment, thus the comments and the performance appraisal constituted a final administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant failed to discharge his evidentiary burden to establish that his application was filed timeously. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was 8 days late and, as such, not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s claim that the basis for the non-renewal decision was his unsuccessful application for a newly created post for which he had applied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of the link between the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and his non-selection for the other post and considered that the timeline of events supported this. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its finding that the non-renewal decision was a separate matter from the then-ongoing selection exercise. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the successive renewals of his appointment created an...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position regarding the moment the Appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the content and finality of the decision and that it triggered the time limit to request management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have found the application not receivable ratione materiae, which is the case if there is no timely request for management evaluation, rather than ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that this error by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not adversely affect...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors in procedure, fact, or law and correctly dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an application against the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for management evaluation and she was not exempted from doing so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant¡¯s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant¡¯s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...
