±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB not to submit the staff member¡¯s appeal to the Standing Committee contravened his rights under the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations by depriving him of access to the appeals process and was a serious violation of his due process rights. Noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisdiction was limited to hearing appeals of decisions of the Standing Committee and that the staff member¡¯s case had not been reviewed by the Standing Committee, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and remanded it to the Standing Committee.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Appellant of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2015/003. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in any way when it dismissed her application finding it to be moot, an outcome which was a natural consequence of the administrative rescission of the impugned decision, circumstances that contemplated the staff member¡¯s claim and rights, solving the previous irregularity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s request to amend her application to seek compensation for material and moral damages was filed after she had received notification of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and fact in ordering the refund of the recovery of the overpayments for two months. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Ten Have was aware of the overpayment in April 2013 and therefore, the general rule of Section 3. 1 of ST/AI//2009/1 was applicable and the recovery of the two months overpayments was not excessive since the limit of two years could not be applied due to the staff member¡¯s awareness of the overpayments as of April 2013, regardless of her previous ignorance or bona fide. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that as no request for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the allegations of irregularity raised by the Appellant were supported by evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was hard to comprehend how the Appellant¡¯s post suddenly became redundant when at the same time around 75 per cent of its functions were to be transferred to a consultant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that even though the new organisational structure was not approved until September 2013, as early as June 2013, the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post had already been decided and was communicated to him by his supervisor, against whom the Appellant filed a complaint of abuse of power. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was disingenuous for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to suggest that the Appellant¡¯s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant¡¯s due process entitlements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant¡¯s application for assignment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate...

The issue for determination by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel of record before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in the absence of any published ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the award of costs, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the calling of a witness in good faith and with the reasonable aim to bolster the views of the Administration did not constitute an abuse of process warranting the award of legal costs and granted the appeal on that point. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the award of prospective compensation of the monetary equivalent of the Special Post Allowance for an uncertain duration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the award of compensation for loss of opportunity...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General¡¯s answer and denied the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal of the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal of Ms Salem. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedural errors did not amount to an abuse of power. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that absent an abuse of power, the compensation for moral damages had to be vacated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal, rejected the cross-appeal, and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment in its entirety.