爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law, and followed binding 爆料网AT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant’s testimony. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before 爆料网DT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had failed to do so and that there was no obligation on 爆料网DT to request this evidence. 爆料网AT held that absent exceptional circumstances, additional evidence (in this case, medical certificates) could not be accepted into evidence on appeal as the Appellant knew the need for the additional evidence and had had the opportunity to present it to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the Administration’s decision not to renew his appointment. 爆料网DT found that the Respondent’s refusal to give reasons for the impugned decision was unlawful and that the non-renewal was due to an improper purpose. 爆料网DT partially granted the application and awarded compensation for financial damage for the unlawful separation. It declined to award moral damages, as the Applicant relied solely on his testimony to support his claim.
Legal Principle(s)
爆料网DT has discretion in assessing compensation and is best placed as the trier of fact to assess the nature and weight of the evidence before it. Harm for which compensation is requested must be supported by evidence beyond a staff member’s testimony alone. There is no obligation on 爆料网DT to request evidence from the parties, particularly when both are represented by counsel. 爆料网DT must follow 爆料网AT precedents.