Â鶹APP

The Applicant was terminated without being given the statutory three months¡¯ notice. Without that notice, the regulatory framework provides that compensation in lieu of the three months¡¯ notice had to be paid. For reasons similar to those stated in Ahmed, the grant of SLWFP to the Applicant for part of the period neither supplants nor equates to the Respondent¡¯s obligation to have given the Applicant his due notice on 10 September 2010. The Staff Regulation and Rules requires the staff member to either be given notice or payment in lieu of that notice. The Applicant in this case received...

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2010/061 on compensation. UNAT held that, as it had previously overturned the judgment on the merits (which found in favour of Mr Sanwidi), the foundation for an award of compensation no longer existed and the appeal was moot. UNAT held that the judgment on compensation was automatically vacated when it overturned the judgment on the merits. UNAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal against UNDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to UNDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-131 by Ms Cohen. UNAT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute or Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about UNAT reducing the compensation awarded. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the UNDT¡¯s lack of jurisdiction, UNAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. UNAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s finding that there was one...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and noted that the letters of appointment issued to the Appellant for the period of 1 July 2009 through 30 June 2012 did not refer to either the Memorandum, that described the planned phasing-out of the PTA, or the PTA itself. UNAT also noted that the PTA is neither a benefit or entitlement under the Staff Regulations and Rules, which ¡°embody the conditions of service and the basic rights and duties and obligations of Â鶹APP staff members,¡± nor an ¡°administrative issuance in application of, and consistent with, the said Regulations and Rules. ¡±...

UNAT considered Mr Karseboom¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment regarding UNAT¡¯s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the UNDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. UNAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. UNAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ¡°key¡± answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. UNAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara¡¯s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that although UNDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. UNAT held that UNDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. UNAT awarded three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. UNAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara¡¯s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the UNDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...