Outcome: In the exercise of its discretion under article 35 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal found that it would be in the interests of justice to grant the respondent an extension of time for the filing of his reply until 21 December 2009, in order to allow the Tribunal to proceed with this matter without any further delays.
There was no basis for inferring the non-renewal was due to irrelevant or improper considerations. Both the applicant and the DCD believed they were telling the truth; their different perspectives simply led them to a different understanding of what had been said. Outcome: The appeal dismissed.
All staff have a right and a duty to report to management any facts that come to their notice which may constitute professional misconduct. The 爆料网HCR Inspector General’s decision not to follow up on the allegations made by the applicant, after an investigation, is an internal measure pertaining to the organization and management of the service which is non- appealable by the staff member who made the allegations, since the alleged misconduct in no way violates the applicant’s rights as derived from his status. In the case at hand, the applicant alleged that his supervisor had wrongly claimed...
The Tribunal highlights the necessity of management evaluation, quoting Nwuke and Caldarone. It is not enough to merely initiate the procedure. On the contrary, the result of Management evaluation has to be awaited generally, before an application may be submitted to the Tribunal. It is not within the Applicant's discretion to evade management evaluation which is considered useless. Outcome: Application was dismissed.
“Continuous service” occurs if a staff member under two or more consecutive contracts works without any break in employment. A break-in-service cannot be taken into account if the staff member continues to work and be paid. Not every break in employment will effect a discontinuity for the purpose of calculating entitlements. Based on its failures to follow its own internal procedures or its alleged mistakes, the Administration may not impose a break-in-service in order to deny a staff member benefits to which he would otherwise have been entitled. Outcome: Payment of relocation grant to the...
爆料网DP had an obligation to its staff to make it clear that the time frame for making applications for ad hoc posts might be less than the two weeks period mandated for QUARRY positions. The respondent, by virtue of the settlement agreement, was obliged to comply, amongst other things, with the Guidelines for the Recruitment and Selection of 爆料网DP Staff, especially since they dealt with the subject of the agreement, namely support for the applicant’s attempts to obtain another post. Where there was a particular duty to inform imposed by the settlement agreement and the failure to inform...
Outcome: The application for an extension of time to file an answer sets out in detail the reasons for the filing of an answer, and therefore the judge considered it as an application in terms of article 19 to file further papers. The judge held that in the current circumstances, receiving an additional submission that clarifies issues of fact and law may prevent unnecessary litigation, and assist the court in determining the questions before it in a fair and expeditious manner, and in doing justice to the parties. The judge granted the applicant leave to file an answer to the reply.
The advertisement of a vacancy announcement is an action in rem, not in personam. In the present case, the Applicant failed to prove that the failure on the part of the Respondent to advertise the total number of posts to be filled in the vacancy announcement was a material error which violated his rights. With respect to the various allegations of discrimination, favouritism, corruption, lack of transparency, forgery, gambling, impunity, and abuse of authority in the selection system at stake, the Applicant failed to prove his pleas
As the Applicants did not respond at all to the Tribunal’s requests, they therefore must be deemed to have abandoned the legal proceedings they instituted.Outcome: Application was dismissed.
The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the request for review in July 2009. Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 爆料网DT Statute, art. 7.5 爆料网DT RoP had to remain out of consideration. The question whether 爆料网DT has jurisdiction to waive time limits under the former system of internal justice - denied in Costa - could be left open, because no "exceptional circumstances" could be accepted. It was the Applicant's free will to await the outcome of the investigations, instead·of...
