UNAT held that it could discern no error in UNDT’s computation of the applicable time limits. UNAT considered that the UNDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant’s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT refused the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify UNAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute which provided...
UNAT held that the evidence against the Appellant uncovered by the investigation was so overwhelming that the only reasonable conclusion available to UNDT was that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Noting that the evidence that he was in possession of the stolen card and that he used it to refuel his own private vehicle was not contested by the Appellant, UNAT held that his explanation of how he came into possession of the stolen card and how he came to use it was incapable of belief. UNAT agreed with the finding of UNDT that the established facts amounted to serious...
UNAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that UNRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the UNRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that UNRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT...
The Appellant appealed the UNRWA DT judgment failure to consider several points and to address compensation. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the requisite grounds in his appeal. UNAT held that it would not allow new claims to be raised on appeal when the circumstances giving rise to such claims were known to a party at the time and should have been presented to UNRWA DT. UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT’s decision not to award compensation on the basis that there was no evidence in support of the Appellant’s claim of psychological suffering. UNAT held that the Appellant’s case was...
UNAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2014/061. On the Appellant’s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant’s motion requesting UNAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, UNAT denied the motion. On the Appellant’s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), UNAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...
UNAT held that there was no error in the UNRWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. UNAT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest...
UNAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey’s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. UNAT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. UNAT held that UNDT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred by considering as mitigating factors the recommendation of Mr Jaffa’s immediate supervisors that his actions warranted a reprimand and the fact that Mr Jaffa continued to perform for two further years (with positive reviews). UNAT held that UNDT erred in not attaching sufficient importance to the fact that Mr Jaffa held a position of trust as a Finance Assistant. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had not overlooked relevant mitigating factors in imposing the sanction of separation from service. UNAT held that it...
UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that UNDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of UNDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s submission that UNDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...
