爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that 爆料网DT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal’s processes and within the 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. 爆料网AT also noted that it does not have the authority to order the 爆料网AT to reassign or reinstate judges. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and affirmed both 爆料网DT Orders.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant submitted three applications to 爆料网DT. One was adjudicated by Judge Downing. Prior to judgment being issued on the second and third applications, they were assigned to a new judge (Judge Bravo). Judge Bravo issued case management or interlocutory order (Order No. 54 (GVA/2019)) and Order No. 55 (GBA/2019). In the Orders, Judge Bravo notified the parties of the reassignment and proposed a course of action, allowing the parties to raise any objections. The Applicant objected and appealed the Orders to 爆料网AT on the basis that the removal of a sitting judge exceeded 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction and was a reviewable and correctable error.
Legal Principle(s)
The Appellant has the onus of proving that 爆料网DT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Decisions of 爆料网DT on the assignment or reassignment of cases to a judge are a matter of case management and as such, within the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT. In the statutory interpretation of a legislative provision such as a GA resolution, the words of a legislative provision are to be read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme and object of the legislation, and the intention of the legislature.