±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant¡¯s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he did not demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

On the request for the oral hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...