±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

With respect to the Secretary-General's appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that misconduct under Count 2 was not established, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Messages sent by the staff member to his neighbour were suggestions and statements to a person who was not a witness at the time. The staff member was not under and did not suspect he would likely be under an investigation at the time he sent the messages. The neighbour found them appropriate and did not feel ¡°influenced¡± by them.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also denied the Secretary-General¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the only issue on appeal was the issue of appropriate compensation for the unlawful contested decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT appropriately found that the requested compensation in the amount of two years¡¯ net base salary was unwarranted as it would exceed the emoluments to which he would have been entitled absent the unlawful termination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in Mr. Kilauri¡¯s contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider the nature and level of the post he formerly occupied and the chances of renewal beyond the expiry of his fixed-term contract but for his unlawful...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation ¡°which he heard from another person who attended court¡± and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 ¡°does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member¡±. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

The Tribunal held that there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that any distress caused to the Applicant was a result of the failure to resolve the harassment complaint and therefore an essential link in the requirement to prove moral damages had not been established by the evidence. The Tribunal noted that the finding that there was abuse of power was not based on an administrative act which was part of the Applicant¡¯s application. The Applicant claimed that the delay was part of the harassment meted out by the Administration. However, she never provided evidence to link the...

Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment asking that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reverse the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman¡¯s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not approve the award of compensation when absolutely no harm had been suffered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that a staff member had the right to be informed of administrative decisions affecting them, however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a few days lapse was inconsequential and, in the matter before it, had no consequences. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the part of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment awarding compensation.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rescinded the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.