| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
The automatic imposition of a 100% penalty where there are "no extenuating circumstances" is not the exercise of a judicious discretion. Umpire recognizes that there should be some uniformity in the penalties imposed and that the Commission is entitled to due deference in its imposition of penalties. Ruled however that unless the Commission is prepared to say why it automatically imposes a 100% penalty in every case of "no extenuating circumstances", then it is not acting judiciously but arbitrarily. Penalty reduced to 25%. Commission appeal to the FCA is pending.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
penalties |
commission policy |
|
Summary:
The automatic imposition of a 100% penalty where there are "no extenuating circumstances" is not the exercise of a judicious discretion. Umpire recognizes that there should be some uniformity in the penalties imposed and that the Commission is entitled to due deference in its imposition of penalties. Ruled however that unless the Commission is prepared to say why it automatically imposes a 100% penalty in every case of "no extenuating circumstances", then it is not acting judiciously but arbitrarily. Penalty reduced to 25%. Commission appeal to the FCA is pending.
