UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. He submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.
The UNAT held that by denying the staff member’s request for referral to mediation the UNDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.
The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member’s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of administrative instructions against the higher norms. Nonetheless, the UNAT did not find that the unchanged maximum allowable compensation for automobiles (and mutatis mutandis for the other claimed items) failed the test of manifest unreasonableness as to justify a finding of inconsistency with Staff Rule 6.5.
The UNAT found that the UNDT had correctly held that the Claim Board’s reasoning in disallowing some of the staff member’s claims was clear from the record. The UNAT was of the view that nothing in his submissions on appeal substantiated and demonstrated that specific items not recommended for compensation reflected the everyday needs of the staff member at the duty station and that, therefore, any of the Claims Board’s evaluations of his individual claims were out of line with the standard. The UNAT found no error in the UNDT’s determinations regarding the application of the standard “reasonably required by the staff member for day-to-day life”. The UNAT found no merit to the staff member’s contention that the UNDT had failed to provide an analysis of each claim.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member contested a decision not to pay him a part of his claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service, following the outbreak of war in Sudan and evacuation.
In Judgment No. UNDT/2025/068, the UNDT dismissed the application on the merits. The UNDT found that the staff member had not shown any evidence of invidious or improper motive in this case. The UNDT found that the record reflected that the Claims Board, in reviewing his request, had properly considered whether the articles had been reasonably required by him for day-to-day life under the conditions existing at the duty station.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The Organization recognizes the informal resolution of conflict as a crucial element of the system of administration of justice, and emphasizes that all possible use should be made of the informal system in order to avoid unnecessary litigation.
A dispute may be referred to mediation at any time during the proceedings before the UNDT, and there are essentially two modes by which the referral can be made: referral by the Dispute Tribunal with the consent of the parties and referral by the parties themselves with notification to the Registry in writing. Where the mediation is initiated sua sponte by the Dispute Tribunal, the UNDT shall suspend the proceedings for a period of time to be specified by it. But where mediation is sought by the parties on their own initiative, they must notify the Registry in writing for the case file to be forwarded to UNOMS which will constitute grounds for the suspension of proceedings.
The Appeals Tribunal will not lightly interfere with the broad discretion conferred on and exercised by the first instance Tribunal in the management of its cases to enable cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously and for dispensation of justice. As the court of first instance, the UNDT is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties.
The UNDT is not obliged to address each and every argument or claim made by a party, particularly when the Tribunal determines that an argument or claim is unfounded. It merely has a duty to unveil its considerations when taking the final decision and disposing of the case, so as to allow the losing party the opportunity to present counter-arguments to the judgment on appeal.