Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Bezziccheri¡¯s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT can be revised, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge was biased, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager¡¯s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/070 by the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error when it concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had failed to consider the Applicant¡¯s personal and humanitarian reasons in the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that relevant matters (personal and humanitarian reasons) had been ignored in the exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s language, which was strongly critical of the Appellant, was unwarranted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the decision to discontinue the payment of her SPA was a legitimate exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, as the Appellant no longer met the requirements for it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the discontinuation of the SPA was justified in view of the Administration¡¯s obligation and right to correct such an erroneous situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in declining the Appellant¡¯s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment could not be assessed as hasty, premature, or arbitrary, with particular reference to the Medical Board process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any opportunity of the Appellant¡¯s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli¡¯s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to revise its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that neither the remand order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nor the need to have the Appellant¡¯s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-798 by Mr. Dibs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted in part the application for execution of judgment and ordered Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to fully execute the judgment within 30 calendar days, advising that failure to comply with the deadline would result in a finding of manifest abuse of process, the award of costs, and potentially, a referral for accountability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the request for moral and pecuniary damages did not fall within the scope of the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and therefore the appeals were defective for that reason but considered the appeals given that the appellants were not legally represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any error on a finding of fact of when the Appellants receive notification of the administrative decision did not result in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that whether the administrative decision was the expressed verbal communication of the denial to provide compensation or was implied from the refusal or failure to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion lawfully to consolidate the cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the impugned decisions were taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew the Limited Duration Contracts at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants' argument with regard to their acquired rights being violated was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.