爆料网

Evidence

  • Admissibility
  • Anonymous statements
  • Audio-recordings
  • Compensation
  • Corroboration/hearsay
  • Credibility assessment
  • Evidence of harm
  • Medical evidence
  • Production of evidence
  • Sole testimony of complainant
    • Showing 71 - 80 of 138
    2013-爆料网AT-364, Nyambuza

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of...

    2013-爆料网AT-307, Shanks

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment Nos. 爆料网DT/2011/209 (on liability) and 爆料网DT/2012/062 (on relief). 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence to support the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that, had the 爆料网 Staff Pension Committee (爆料网SPC) not proceeded with its determination, Ms Shanks would more likely than not have been found fit to resume her duties. 爆料网AT held that the only valid conclusion available on the medical evidence was that Ms Shanks was not entitled to return to work on a part-time basis since she was not able to obtain medical clearance permitting it. 爆料网AT held that...

    2014-爆料网AT-480, Oh

    爆料网AT preliminarily dismissed the Appellant’s Application for Confidentiality and then considered the merits of the Appeal, which contained three grounds. With respect to the first ground, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in concluding that due process was satisfied if the staff member could comment on anonymous witness statements providing evidence against him. 爆料网AT noted that the reasons for withholding the identities of the victims and for not producing them at trial were contained in the OIOS Investigation Report that was sent to the Appellant, thus the conditions for the admissibility for...

    2014-爆料网AT-443, Hunt-Matthes

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member’s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey’s summary of evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. 爆料网AT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General...

    2014-爆料网AT-442, El-Khalek

    爆料网RWA DT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in fact or in law such as to vitiate its judgment, except with regards to the award of compensation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not overstep its role to judicially review the administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure on the staff member and terminating his appointment. 爆料网AT held that the Administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff member had committed the serious misconduct he had been charged with, because not only did the proceedings fail to provide him with an adequate...

    2014-爆料网AT-440, Stoykov

    爆料网AT held that, while the representatives of the parties were present at the oral proceedings, they are entitled to the record of the testimonies made at those proceedings from the relevant 爆料网DT Registry. 爆料网AT held that this record is critical for the preparation of the appeal case. 爆料网AT held that the transcripts of the testimonies of seven out of 17 witnesses were missing. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was entitled to the record of the testimonies critical to the preparation of the appeal case, applying its jurisprudence in Finnis (Order No. 49 (2011)). 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT...

    2014-爆料网AT-435, Hushiyeh

    On appeal, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. 爆料网AT further held that 爆料网RWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court’s evaluation of the Applicant...

    2014-爆料网AT-426, Kacan

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to show that 爆料网DT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. 爆料网AT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to 爆料网DT for his witness to be called. 爆料网AT found that there was no mention of any witness in the 爆料网DT judgment and that it was not clear that 爆料网DT had considered that evidence. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by 爆料网DT for not calling the witness. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

    2015-爆料网AT-580, Kalil

    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...

    2016-爆料网AT-690, Abu Malluh

    爆料网AT considered the appeal, specifically whether 爆料网RWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members’ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether 爆料网RWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. 爆料网AT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before 爆料网RWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. 爆料网AT noted that while 爆料网RWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...