±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli¡¯s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to revise its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that neither the remand order of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nor the need to have the Appellant¡¯s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the...

A telephone conversation that was suggestive of gender discrimination in the decision-making process and was raised by the Appellant in his application was ignored by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error in the procedure by failing to hold an oral hearing where witnesses could testify about that conversation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the matter back to a different judge of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for the production of further evidence, additional findings of fact, and the issuance of a new judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or in fact when it found that the decision to abolish the post was lawful. However, in not providing reasons for its decision to commute the six-month notice period into compensation, the Organisation failed in its duty to demonstrate that its discretion was not exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully. The Administration failed to meet its burden to minimally demonstrate that the Appellant was given full and fair consideration. The Administration acted arbitrarily and thus failed to exercise its discretion lawfully. The termination of the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant¡¯s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant¡¯s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in declining the Appellant¡¯s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment could not be assessed as hasty, premature, or arbitrary, with particular reference to the Medical Board process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any opportunity of the Appellant¡¯s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s language, which was strongly critical of the Appellant, was unwarranted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the decision to discontinue the payment of her SPA was a legitimate exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, as the Appellant no longer met the requirements for it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the discontinuation of the SPA was justified in view of the Administration¡¯s obligation and right to correct such an erroneous situation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no express rescission of the impugned decision by the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that monthly renewals pending the outcome of the rebuttal of a performance evaluation did not resolve the complaint of the non-renewal of the fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the monthly renewals did not rescind or supersede the impugned decision and the application could not be considered moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in its decision, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment, and remanded the matter to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for proper...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion lawfully to consolidate the cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the impugned decisions were taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew the Limited Duration Contracts at the time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants' argument with regard to their acquired rights being violated was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and therefore the appeals were defective for that reason but considered the appeals given that the appellants were not legally represented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any error on a finding of fact of when the Appellants receive notification of the administrative decision did not result in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that whether the administrative decision was the expressed verbal communication of the denial to provide compensation or was implied from the refusal or failure to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-798 by Mr. Dibs. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted in part the application for execution of judgment and ordered ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to fully execute the judgment within 30 calendar days, advising that failure to comply with the deadline would result in a finding of manifest abuse of process, the award of costs, and potentially, a referral for accountability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the request for moral and pecuniary damages did not fall within the scope of the application.