51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that the UNDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. UNAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. UNAT held that, regarding the question of whether UNDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that UNDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. UNAT held, however, that UNDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

A telephone conversation that was suggestive of gender discrimination in the decision-making process and was raised by the Appellant in his application was ignored by UNDT. UNDT made an error in the procedure by failing to hold an oral hearing where witnesses could testify about that conversation. UNAT remanded the matter back to a different judge of the UNDT for the production of further evidence, additional findings of fact, and the issuance of a new judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mezyed. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied Mr. Mezyed¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Turning to the merits of the appeal, UNAT found that the UNRWA DT had applied correctly the first four conditions in Area Staff Rule 109.4 precedent to possible severance from service for abandonment of post. As to the fifth condition, Mr. Mezyed¡¯s failure to submit an acceptable written explanation for his failure to report, UNAT found that the Agency had failed to properly address the grounds advanced by Mr. Mezyed for his non-return, and as such, the UNRWA DT could not...

This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the UNDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the UNAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the UNDT has: (a) exceeded its...

UNAT held that UNDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. UNAT held that, regarding the question of whether UNDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that UNDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. UNAT held, however, that UNDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. UNAT held that the UNDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. UNAT admitted on appeal the...

UNAT held the staff member¡¯s appeal of the UNDT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the UNDT was erroneous. Additionally, UNAT also held that it found no error in the practice of the UNDT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal prescribe the form of the parties¡¯ submissions filed in accordance with an order of the Tribunal. In the absence of such provisions, the matter falls under article 36 of the Rules of Procedures. The respondent has not specified anything in the form of the applicant¡¯s submission that substantively breaches his obligations under the directions made in the Tribunal¡¯s order¡ªthe use of the word ¡°grounds¡± in a subheading instead of ¡°issues¡± is not a significant difference and generally it is of no importance which template the applicant...

The Applicant sought a further extension of time on 16 October 2009 to file her substantive application after the Tribunal had previously granted her 21 days to do so. This extension expired on 16 October 2009. The Tribunal noted that: the Applicant¡¯s Counsel had applied to withdraw from representing the Applicant for want of instructions; the request for extension was filed on the date of expiry of the previous Order, and moved the Tribunal for a further extension of 1 year; the Applicant alluded to ¡°direct negotiations¡± being underway; ¡°with the Respondent in this matter¡±, but failed to...