Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made to its own judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant¡¯s application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s application and ordered the correction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on her application for a suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that, in actuality, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT erred in making an award of interest, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT are final and without appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this attempt to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-914 from Mr Oglesby. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the party applying for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that it was within the combined powers of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

The Appellant challenged Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae as he did not make a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the filing. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT calculation of the three-time periods of participation in the contributory health insurance plan was not correct. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even the correct calculation did not result in the required 10 years of participation, but only 9 years, 10 months, and 14 days. Turning to consider the period of 11 May to 30 June 2009, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member who had expressly conceded in her application that a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to conclude that the Appellant had initiated the physical fight. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude the evidence of a witness was not clear and convincing, given inconsistencies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT determined correctly that a prior altercation could not provide propensity evidence to corroborate witnesses¡¯ accounts of the physical fight because the prior altercation was not investigated properly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had been unduly influenced into signing the settlement agreement, but that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...