Â鶹APP

The UNAT found that the written witness statement sought to be submitted constituted new and additional evidence on appeal. The UNAT found that it was apparent that the staff member had known of the evidence at the Dispute Tribunal but, as he noted in his motion and appeal brief, had relied on other grounds which he believed were sufficient to substantiate his claims without risking exposing the witness. The UNAT held that this rendered his request to submit additional evidence on appeal inadmissible. The UNAT denied the motion for leave to submit a confidential witness statement.

The UNAT did not consider the seasonal absences of legal staff to be an exceptional circumstance. The UNAT found that, on the contrary, it was routinely expected that staff will take annual leave in the summer months. The UNAT further held that the fact that the Director General had failed to view any e-mail for a period of 19 days was an error for which the consequences had to be borne by the Director General. The UNAT denied the Director General¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the staff members¡¯ motion.

The UNAT found that the present motion was distinguishable from a typical motion for withdrawal of an appeal: the non-moving party objects to the withdrawal as a revised appeal would enable the Secretary-General to address arguments included in the answer and, second, the Secretary-General still deems it necessary to pursue an appeal. The UNAT held that its reiteration in a recent case that appeals on the merits and relief should be considered together had not been new and was an insufficient basis on which to request the filing of a revised appeal. The UNAT found, however, that when the UNDT...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had filed his appeal of the UNRWA DT Judgment on his application for execution before the UNAT Judgment in the underlying case was issued and the Commissioner-General had an opportunity to address the UNAT Judgment before submitting the answer to the present appeal. The UNAT found that given these circumstances, it was in the interest of procedural fairness to allow the staff member to submit additional pleadings 20 days from the issuance of the Order and not exceeding five pages. The UNAT granted the motion for additional pleadings.

The UNAT held that the staff member's motion for the production of evidence did not meet the criteria set out in the UNAT Statute and Rules of Procedure. The UNAT found that the staff member had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of the additional evidence on appeal. The UNAT noted that, moreover, the staff member had not demonstrated that any relevant fact was likely to be established with the staff member¡¯s half-brother, Mr. SRB¡¯s employment history sought to be produced or that it would be in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious...

The UNAT held that the staff member did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief which was consistent with the UNDT Judgment; on the contrary, he sought the opposite, i.e., anonymization which the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had not granted him. The UNAT also found that the prior UNAT Judgment was res judicata as to the question of anonymity and could be reversed, if at all, only through a revision of judgment. The UNAT denied the staff member¡¯s motion for interim measures.

The UNAT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The UNAT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.

The UNAT held that the motion was not receivable because the impugned Order was not appealable and the UNDT had acted within its competence and jurisdiction in finding that the non-renewal decision had been prima facie lawful. The UNAT found that the staff member¡¯s request for reinstatement to his previous position could be considered as ¡°temporary relief to prevent irreparable harm¡± but it was instead an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the suspension of action which was not permitted. The UNAT also noted that granting the staff member¡¯s request would not maintain consistency with the...

The UNAT found that the unexplained delay of almost a year in filing the request for interpretation would alone cause the UNAT to reject it. The UNAT held that, in addition, the request for interpretation lacked a jurisdictional basis. The UNAT found that the staff member had demonstrated no equivocality or lack of clarity of the Judgment.

The UNAT was of the view that the request for execution relied on the staff member¡¯s success in having the earlier Judgment interpreted in the manner he sought and, therefore, his request for execution was moot. The UNAT further noted that the Judgment had...

The UNAT noted that months after the death of the participant in the Fund, the Appellant had produced Pens.A/2 forms purporting to change the designation of the beneficiary of the residual settlement, executed by a thumbprint and not the participant¡¯s signature. The UNAT also noted the medical evidence of signs of the participant¡¯s dementia.

The UNAT found that the Appellant had provided no evidence to support the contention that the participant¡¯s mental capacity had improved by the time of thumbprinting the later forms. The UNAT held that the Fund had not erred when it found those forms...