Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had nor erred in law or fact rendering its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to persuade the Court that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion of fact had rendered the decision unreasonable as required by Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence clearly supported the finding of gross negligence and loss of property, as well as the existence of the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no due process violation on the part of the Administration for having charged the Appellant with three accounts of misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the misconduct had been established...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the open animosity and ill-feeling between the PCO and the staff member, the Administration should not have included the former in the interview panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the test for apparent bias applied by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct, regardless of whether a fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the interview panel was biased. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was best placed to calculate on the evidence the appropriate level of compensation and found no reason to disturb the...

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 the absence of any breach of the staff member¡¯s substantive or procedural rights during the selection exercise precluded the award of moral damages to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member could not show a breach of a fundamental nature or that he suffered harm, stress or anxiety directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his substantive or procedural rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to respond to staff members¡¯ repeated requests for information was not a breach of his substantive contractual...

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...

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 had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was disingenuous for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to suggest that the Appellant¡¯s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant¡¯s due process entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant¡¯s application for assignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate...