爆料网

爆料网RWA

Showing 191 - 200 of 274
2017-爆料网AT-718, Bagot

爆料网AT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General’s cross-appeal was receivable. 爆料网AT agreed with the findings of 爆料网RWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. 爆料网AT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

2017-爆料网AT-760, Sa'adeddin

爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable to the extent that it contested decisions taken. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网RWA DT’s findings that the provisions in the GMIP were mandatory for the 爆料网RWA, that the GMIP does not include a provision with respect to retroactivity, and that 爆料网RWA has no discretionary authority to enrol former staff members if this is not allowed in the contract. 爆料网AT held that the GMIP could not apply outside of its scope of application. 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence that 爆料网RWA DT erred on the law or the facts, and that the Appellant’s...

2018-爆料网AT-894, B. Kosbeh et al.

Having decided that an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,” as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, 爆料网AT denied the Applicants’ request for one. 爆料网AT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before 爆料网RWA DT and no application had been made to 爆料网AT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. 爆料网AT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...

2018-爆料网AT-888, Al Saleh

爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. 爆料网AT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ” To that end, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT found no fault with 爆料网RWA DT’s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

2018-爆料网AT-887, Elayyan

爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. 爆料网AT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. 爆料网AT held that the claim in Appellant’s Appeal was not initially brought before 爆料网RWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that 爆料网RWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...

2018-爆料网AT-884, Orabi

爆料网AT considered whether 爆料网RWA DT erred in finding that the Agency correctly decided not to transfer the Appellant to the post in question. 爆料网AT held that the issue of whether the Agency has an obligation to contact all staff members who made a transfer request is not receivable because it was not raised before 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s complaint required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious, and 爆料网RWA DT did not make such findings. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated 爆料网RWA/DT/2018/026, and remanded the issue of whether the Administration fulfilled...

2018-爆料网AT-881, Mansour

爆料网AT considered the content of the Appellant’s appeal, the 爆料网RWA DT judgment, and the Appellant’s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant’s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. 爆料网AT also held that there was no error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s findings that the Administration’s decision not to confirm the Appellant’s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination...

2018-爆料网AT-879, Nimer

爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter’s employment situation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant’s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...