±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a ±¬ÁÏÍøAT order requesting information. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier ±¬ÁÏÍøAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...

As to the appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s Order for expungement of the impugned documents from its case file, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was receivable because, unless the documents were preserved for use at trial, they might be lost with the consequence that the Secretary-General would be unable to use them to establish his allegations of forgery and fraud as he was entitled to. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s Order was, in this respect, effectively irremediable; that this would be a manifestly unreasonable consequence of the Order for the Secretary-General; and that the circumstances were so rare and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there is no...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to allow the Appellant¡¯s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment asking that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reverse the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman¡¯s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

The Secretary-General filed appeals against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Orders. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that, generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that an interlocutory appeal is receivable exceptionally in cases where ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in the management of cases. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that one of the goals of the new system of administration of justice is rendering timely judgments; cases before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could seldom proceed if either party were able to appeal interlocutory...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal against Order No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/O/2010/023 by the Secretary-General. Applying the principle that a party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Order had no practical effect following the withdrawal of the request for suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was moot as it was academic and sought an opinion regarding the issues raised in the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any alleged error by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in considering the merits was moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.