爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that there was no evidence before 爆料网DT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant’s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant’s application to 爆料网DT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and the EOD date. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should have dismissed the application on receivability ratione materiae as both the entry on duty date and the subsequent refusal to amend it were not administrative decisions. 爆料网DT did not err in dismissing the application on receivability ratione temporis as it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision in 2008 to reappoint, and not reassign, the Appellant and the subsequent EOD. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of 爆料网DT in part.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant disputed her entry on duty (EOD) date for her reappointment with 爆料网LB, which was recorded as 2 September 2008, and requested that it be amended to 28 February 2000 (the date that she was initially appointed to 爆料网TAET). 爆料网DT held that, although the Applicant had requested a timely management evaluation of the decision refusing to change her EOD date, the underlying decision of 2008 to enter 2 September 2008 as the EOD date was outside of the 爆料网DT’s temporal jurisdiction. 爆料网DT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
The party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds; a judgment can contain errors of law or fact, even with regard to the analysis of the tribunal’s own jurisdiction or the competence and yet, it may still not be appealable. 爆料网AT has the authority to review errors of jurisdiction by the first instance tribunal regardless of who raised the issue. The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms and conditions of appointment; the administrative decision must have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of the individual staff member.