爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member’s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.
The 爆料网AT further held that the Administration’s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration’s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration’s opinion that the matter was closed was not a decision of the 爆料网DT and did not have the effect of closing the matter before the 爆料网DT.
The 爆料网AT held that although the staff member failed to pursue his claim for over 12 years, it could not be rejected on the basis that it was not receivable when he filed it with the JCD timeously, in the manner required, it had already been referred to the JDC and was required to have been transferred to the 爆料网DT. Any shortcomings in the transfer of cases from the JDC to the 爆料网DT was not attributable to the former staff member. He therefore should not be denied access to justice.
The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT erred in finding the staff member’s application not receivable and reversed the 爆料网DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The former staff member filed an application in which he sought adjudication of the request for review that he filed in 2007 which was transferred from the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC) to the Dispute Tribunal following the closure of the JDC and the establishment of the Dispute Tribunal in July 2009.
In Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2024/013, the Dispute Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable.
The former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
An application cannot be received by the 爆料网DT if it is filed more than three years after the staff member’s receipt of the contested administrative decision.
Determinations about the status of a judicial proceeding are for the relevant judicial body to make, not the Administration.