Judgment No. 1373
THE TRIBUNAL ISSUES AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER QUASHING THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S DECISION AND APPOINTING TWO EXPERTS, ONE SCIENTIFIC THE OTHER MEDICAL, TO CARRY OUT ENQUIRIES AT THE AGENCY'S EXPENSE AND AS SPECIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL.
The Medical Board based its findings on the lack of "conclusive" evidence. "But that was not the standard of proof it was required to apply." Referring to Judgments 528 and 641, the Tribunal holds that what is required is no more "than a balance of probability in favour of what the complainant is alleging.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 528, 641
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; evidence; burden of proof; case law; medical board; standard of proof
"In this judgment, which is an interlocutory order, the Tribunal will follow the precedent it set in Judgment 875 [...]. It orders two expert inquiries. It will appoint both a scientific expert and a medical expert, and their terms of reference will be as set out in the operative points of the decision below."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 875
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; interlocutory order; further submissions; expert inquiry; case law