UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General’s defence. UNAT held, therefore, that the UNDT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment. The case was remanded to UNDT to be heard afresh.
UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. UNAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the UNAT RoP. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how UNDT had erred on questions of...
UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s interlocutory appeal against the UNDT order as not receivable, finding that UNDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. UNAT held that UNDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. UNAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.
UNAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB’s recommendation not to accept the Appellant’s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. UNAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. UNAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant’s services were unsatisfactory. UNAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...
UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that she did not demonstrate that her request for an extension of time was reasonable. UNAT found that the evidence about negotiations being contemplated, needed, or underway was previously refuted on appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant had the time and the assistance of legal counsel to advance her application and did not avail herself of those opportunities. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.
UNAT held that the UNDT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. UNAT stated the principle that UNDT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes UNDT’s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request UNDT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...
UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...
UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing considering it not necessary and that it would unduly delay the delivery of the judgment. UNAT held that appeals against decisions taken in the course of proceedings, including orders imposing interim measures, were non-receivable, even when UNDT committed an error of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, UNAT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the UNDT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the UNDT RoP. UNAT set aside the UNDT judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the UNAT judgment.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT considered that UNDT failed to show proper consideration for judicial economy and efficiency by choosing to proceed with a hearing on the merits of Mr Cooke’s application in full knowledge of an appeal by the Secretary-General and ignoring the possibility that its judgment on Receivability might be reversed, as it was. UNAT held that when it determines that UNDT improperly received an application and reverses or vacates a judgment on receivability, any judgment on the merits is null and void ab initio. UNAT clarified that this did not...
