爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered appeals against 爆料网DT judgment Nos. 爆料网DT/2010/108 and 爆料网DT/2010/109 jointly. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the 爆料网DT’s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. 爆料网AT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds applied in the case. 爆料网AT noted that in judgment No. 爆料网DT/2010/108, 爆料网DT accepted the procedural flaws and ruled that the decision not to renew the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment was not in conformity with his terms of appointment and rescinded the decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that 爆料网DT erred in not requiring his former supervisor to provide oral testimony to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that it had taken note of the Appellant’s claim against the Office of Staff Legal Assistance and would consider and dispose of it in a separate judgment. Noting that 爆料网DT has the discretion to determine the amount of damages awarded, taking into account the circumstances of the case, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in the exercise of its discretion, including in its finding that the decision relating to commutation of his accrued annual leave days was time-barred. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not show that 爆料网DT erred in its judgments. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and upheld the 爆料网DT judgments.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the non-extension of his appointment and the non-transmittal of an inter-office memorandum received by the Appointments, Posting and Promotions Committee (APPC). In judgment No. 爆料网DT/2010/108, 爆料网AT rescinded the non-extension decision (providing as an alternative in lieu compensation) and found that the non-transmittal of the memorandum did not constitute an administrative decision and, as such, was not receivable. In judgment No. 爆料网DT/2010/109, 爆料网DT consolidated two applications related to the non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment, concluding that the Administration had conducted the Applicant’s separation procedures in accordance with the rules and that his application relating to commutation of his annual leave was time-barred.
Legal Principle(s)
It is insufficient for an appellant to state that he or she disagrees with the findings of fact or to repeat the arguments submitted before 爆料网DT; an appellant must identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made. The party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds. 爆料网DT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence and the weight to attach thereto. 爆料网DT has the discretion to determine the amount of damages awarded, taking into account the circumstances of the case.