爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of 爆料网AT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before 爆料网DT, 爆料网AT noted that a litigant’s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. 爆料网AT held that it was not the task of 爆料网DT (or 爆料网AT) to step into the Administration’s role and repeat the Retention Panel procedure, or to assess the staff members’ possibilities during the downsizing exercises or post abolition. 爆料网AT held that no procedural flaw by the Retention Panel was established by the Appellant before 爆料网DT or 爆料网AT and no irregularity could be inferred from an undated document, which supposedly listed his post as “non-abolished”. 爆料网AT considered that the issue of the non-initiation of a preliminary investigation was adequately considered by 爆料网DT as not being part of the Appellant’s management evaluation request. 爆料网AT noted that the failure to undertake that kind of investigation does not constitute sufficient ground to make the impugned decision illegal or to render incorrect the first instance court’s conclusions. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not shown any real error of fact or law in the impugned judgment which would warrant its reversal. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment as a result of a downsizing process and the abolition of his post. 爆料网DT rejected the application, finding that the application was based on unsubstantiated allegations and that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate the unlawfulness of the contested administrative decision.
Legal Principle(s)
A litigant’s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se.