Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 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.

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 noted that V01 had not been placed under oath before giving her interview and that she did not sign the transcribed version of her interview statement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that V01¡¯s transcribed statement, in which she said that the Appellant had raped her and engaged in sex with her, was neither reliable nor trustworthy; it was solely hearsay and insufficient, by itself, to prove the charge that the Appellant engaged in sexual activity with a minor. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that similarly the other written documents were replete with hearsay and multiple hearsays and were neither trustworthy nor sufficient to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was persuaded for reasons of equity and good faith by the Appellant¡¯s arguments rather than those put forward by the Secretary-General, although it did not accept the entirety of the Appellant¡¯s arguments on the discontinuation issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in failing to give due consideration to the arguments raised by the Appellant regarding the years 1989 to 1997, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in retroactively applying former Staff Rule 104. 3 set forth in ST/SGB/2003/1 to the entirety of his service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was entitled to rely on the statutory provisions in force when he last...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB not to submit the staff member¡¯s appeal to the Standing Committee contravened his rights under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations by depriving him of access to the appeals process and was a serious violation of his due process rights. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisdiction was limited to hearing appeals of decisions of the Standing Committee and that the staff member¡¯s case had not been reviewed by the Standing Committee, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and remanded it to the Standing Committee.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Fedorchenko¡¯s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in determining that the contested decision was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the staff member could not challenge the decision not to reinstate him because he had entered a binding contract with the Administration when he signed the offer of appointment or the letter of appointment, both of which were silent about reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the reinstatement was not foreclosed by the absence of a reference...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issues for decision had been clearly defined by the parties¡¯ submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had failed to persuade it that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was correct to conclude that the Administration had acted unlawfully when it did not renew the staff member¡¯s appointment because there was not enough evidence to support a determination that the staff member had failed to perform his functions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

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...