Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to be non-receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

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...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General¡¯s answer and denied the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-363. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could discern no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s computation of the applicable time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute which provided...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...