Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a writ of mandamus from Ms Wesslund, who requested that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT order Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to accept her applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because it did not have inherent or original jurisdiction outside its capacity as an appellate body, it considered the motion for writ of mandamus to be an appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 100 (NY/2013). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was received beyond the deadline for appeal. Noting that Ms Wesslund did not apply to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for an extension or waive of the applicable time limits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the Order was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Applicant¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-209. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant¡¯s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

Noting that no request to waive the deadline was received, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable for failure to appeal within the statutory deadline.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent a request for waiver or extension of the time limits as well as any factors that would qualify as exceptional circumstances, the appeal was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for...

The issue for determination by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel of record before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in the absence of any published Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-297. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...