DSA is provided for official trips only, and these must be formally approved prior to travel. The decision to refuse DSA for the days the Applicant was in Cairo is therefore lawful, as that part of his presence in Cairo was clearly for personal purposes.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the verbal decision conveyed to the Applicant was “clear and unambiguous” enough to have met the test laid down by the Appeals Tribunal in Auda. The Applicant’s repeated emails to the Respondent to express his disagreement with the impugned decision is evidence of the clarity of the decision. Time began to run from the date the decision was conveyed to him unambiguously.
The impugned “decision” carried no “direct legal consequences” given that it was not final and remains open to challenge by way of rebuttal.
The Tribunal concluded that based on the totality of evidentiary material, the electronic fuel monitoring system (EFMS) transaction records, Vivo Energy transaction logs, and the identification by witnesses heard in the investigation, it was satisfied that the Applicant’s participation in the fraudulent scheme had been shown by clear and convincing evidence. On the due process prong, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant faulted the conduct of the investigation on the ground that the investigators favoured inculpatory evidence and ignored potential exculpatory factors. The Tribunal observed...
The Tribunal found that the Respondent complied with the judgment and took steps to execute the judgment accordingly. The Applicant failed to show that the judgment remains unexecuted. The Tribunal held that the express notice in the form of the memorandum from the Respondent advising the Applicant of his reinstatement from date of separation in compliance with the judgment was proof of execution.
The Tribunal found that documentary evidence, including at least two instances of consecutive transactions for materially impossible refueling on 16 February 2017 and on 17 May 2017, confirmed the Applicant’s participation in the fraudulent fuel scheme and his submission of falsified documents. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested decision. Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant improperly used 麻豆APP property for his personal gain in a matter...
1. In relation to the Applicant’s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that Staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae...
The Tribunal found that the Respondent complied with the judgment and took steps to execute the judgment accordingly. The Applicant failed to show that the judgment remains unexecuted. The Tribunal held that the express notice in the form of the memorandum from the Respondent advising the Applicant of his reinstatement from date of separation in compliance with the judgment was proof of execution.
The record is clear that the Applicant first came to the Tribunal on 24 February 2020, after 90 days from the date he was notified of the contested decision. Time limits for formal contestations are to be strictly enforced, a day late is by no means de minimis. The UNDT has no discretion to waive the applicable deadlines.
In relation to the Applicant’s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae. On...
