爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
On the request for the oral hearing, 爆料网AT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether 爆料网DT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, 爆料网AT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) 爆料网DT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in priority to certain interlocutory issues and there was nothing in the 爆料网DT’s procedure by which it dealt with the motions that was erroneous in law or otherwise can be criticised; (2) as to the outcomes of the motions, there was no error on the part of 爆料网DT; (3) 爆料网DT did not exceed its competence by refusing to order the preservation of a potentially large volume of inadequately defined e-mails in a “drift-net fishing expedition” by the Appellant; (4) 爆料网DT did not exceed its competence by identifying that if the Appellant sought to discover a document evidencing a promise to renew or extend his fixed-term appointment, this could not assist him in circumventing the statutory prohibition upon legitimate expectations of such contract extensions; and (5) 爆料网DT was competent to refuse the attendance at the hearing of the Ombudsman and to admit into evidence the emails exploring genuine possibilities for settlement in the case. 爆料网AT observed that it would have concluded that the Appellant’s motions were correctly decided by 爆料网DT and there was nothing to support his appeal against the Order. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Order.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr. Toson contests Order No. 226 (NBI/2020) in relation to the case registered as 爆料网DT/NBI/2019/163. The Order denied Mr. Toson’s request for an order directing the preservation and production of e-mails, rejected his request for production of investigation and ethics reports, and granted his request for a hearing in part (rejecting two witnesses).
Legal Principle(s)
An applicant for an oral hearing must establish that the hearing is required. Only in a narrow range of cases can a party appeal an interlocutory order, and only on grounds that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Appeals against interlocutory orders affecting such matters as evidence, procedure and trial conduct are not receivable, at least not until they may form part of an appeal against the 爆料网DT’s substantive judgment.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
N/A