爆料网AT had before it an appeal of the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal of Ms Salem. 爆料网AT held that the procedural errors did not amount to an abuse of power. 爆料网AT held that absent an abuse of power, the compensation for moral damages had to be vacated. 爆料网AT granted the appeal, rejected the cross-appeal, and vacated the 爆料网RWA DT judgment in its entirety.
爆料网AT had before it an appeal by the staff member limited to the award of compensation. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网RWA DT set the compensation in lieu of reinstatement award by calculating the sum the Appellant would have received for the remainder of his two-year contract, less the amount he received as salaries from other employers during the same period. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in this regard. 爆料网AT held that it was satisfied that in its assessment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, 爆料网RWA DT was conscious of the Appellant’s claims for loss of opportunity. 爆料网AT held that, in view of...
爆料网AT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (爆料网RWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2014/027. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the 爆料网RWA DT judgment and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s reasoning. 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request to submit new evidence to 爆料网AT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. 爆料网AT held that it was for 爆料网RWA DT to consider that it...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. 爆料网AT inferred that the Appellant claimed 爆料网RWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that the legal conclusion of 爆料网DT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-爆料网AT-436 as well as a motion requesting that 爆料网AT strike certain paragraphs from it. 爆料网AT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. 爆料网AT held that his application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. 爆料网AT held that the text of 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that 爆料网RWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. 爆料网AT held that, contrary to the Appellant’s submissions, 爆料网RWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of 爆料网RWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网RWA found that the Appellant’s evidence...
爆料网AT had before it an appeal of judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2014/017. 爆料网AT noted that judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-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. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant’s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held as unsustainable the Appellant’s claim that 爆料网RWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-363. 爆料网AT held...
爆料网AT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that 爆料网RWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not identify how the 爆料网RWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that 爆料网RWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT...
爆料网AT held that there was no error in the 爆料网RWA 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. 爆料网AT 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. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest...
The Appellant appealed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment failure to consider several points and to address compensation. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the requisite grounds in his appeal. 爆料网AT held that it would not allow new claims to be raised on appeal when the circumstances giving rise to such claims were known to a party at the time and should have been presented to 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网RWA DT’s decision not to award compensation on the basis that there was no evidence in support of the Appellant’s claim of psychological suffering. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s case was...
