±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s approach, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT relied on its holding in Hastings (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-109), where it held that the trial court is in a much better position than ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in assessing the probabilities of a candidate being selected for a position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Appellant should not be awarded any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid to her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request to award costs against the Secretary-General, noting that there were...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal limited to the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in awarding costs against him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the jurisdiction of a tribunal to award costs is narrowly restricted to instances where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT gave no reasons for its determination that the Appellant had manifestly abused the proceedings, cited no evidence establishing that his application was frivolous or vexatious, or that he had deliberately delayed the proceedings, or had disobeyed an order of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT or had, in any other way, abused ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the award of costs, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the calling of a witness in good faith and with the reasonable aim to bolster the views of the Administration did not constitute an abuse of process warranting the award of legal costs and granted the appeal on that point. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the award of prospective compensation of the monetary equivalent of the Special Post Allowance for an uncertain duration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the award of compensation for loss of opportunity...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors of fact or law by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014/017. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-363. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-552), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it...