51ÁÔÆæ

On appeal, UNAT limited its consideration to the issue of the amount of compensation awarded in lieu of rescission and the amount of compensation awarded for harm. On the issue of in lieu compensation, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to advance any error of law or of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT noted that in lieu compensation is not intended to compensate for the possible harm suffered by the injured person, as that is the specific aim of compensation for harm. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had the discretion to fix this amount as a generic sum and was not bound by...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA against judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2018/004. UNAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that UNRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before UNRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, UNAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

UNAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. UNAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. UNAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent¡¯s claim to award costs, UNAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...

UNAT held that the Applicant failed to discharge his evidentiary burden to establish that his application was filed timeously. UNAT held that the application was 8 days late and, as such, not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that all of the Appellant¡¯s grounds of appeal failed, except for his challenge to the UNRWA decision not to renew or extend the Appellant¡¯s limited duration contract beyond its final extension, for the simple reason that those several decisions to extend his contract advantaged him by adding, in total, six months to his contract. On the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-renewal or final extension, UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT¡¯s reasoning and that UNRWA was justified in deciding not to renew or extend his employment, noting that UNRWA faced a massive financial shortfall...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by UNRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) UNAT Statute, UNAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that UNRWA DT¡¯s exercise...

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/070 by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error when it concluded that UNRWA had failed to consider the Applicant¡¯s personal and humanitarian reasons in the impugned decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that relevant matters (personal and humanitarian reasons) had been ignored in the exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in declining the Appellant¡¯s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. UNAT 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. UNAT held that any opportunity of the Appellant¡¯s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...

UNAT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, UNAT held that UNRWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party¡¯s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, UNAT rejected Mr ElShanti¡¯s arguments against consolidation. UNAT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti¡¯s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that UNRWA...

UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-798 by Mr. Dibs. UNAT granted in part the application for execution of judgment and ordered UNRWA to fully execute the judgment within 30 calendar days, advising that failure 51ÁÔÆæ the deadline would result in a finding of manifest abuse of process, the award of costs, and potentially, a referral for accountability. UNAT considered that the request for moral and pecuniary damages did not fall within the scope of the application.