¹ú²úAV

UNAT found that the facts were not disputed in this case. UNAT found that the appeal addressed errors of law and fact, maintaining that the Organisation was liable for accidents that occur on the way home, either directly or by a detour. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment very clearly stated the applicable law in Appendix D of the Staff Rules and that there was no error in the ABCC’s practice not to cover injuries sustained during travel to and from work by an indirect route. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT found merit in the Secretary-General’s submission that UNDT was not competent to determine or assume that the injury was service-related; to assume that there was a likelihood of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) would have reached a different conclusion had it followed the correct procedure; that the ABCC made its recommendations based on uncertain facts and inference which were derived, improbably, from the absence of evidence; that after the second accident, the staff member was permanently disabled and unable to work...

UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding that the staff member’s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). UNAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

UNAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

UNAT refused the Appellant’s application for an oral hearing, noting that the Appellant was not entitled to call evidence on appeal that she should have presented to UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT correctly regarded itself as not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence. UNAT held that UNDT made no error in its finding that the ABCC’s recommendation had no connection with the attempted recovery of monies which was allegedly paid to the Appellant by the United Nations Federal Credit Union (UNFCU) by mistake. UNAT held that UNDT was quite correct in its opinion that the...

UNAT held that UNDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. UNAT held that the only proper course for UNDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General’s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...

UNAT held that exceptional circumstances existed on the basis that the Appellant was suffering from a medical condition, hospitalized and unable to file the appeal on a timely basis. UNAT waived the deadline for appeal and held the appeal to be receivable. UNAT held that, in his appeal, the Appellant largely repeated the submissions and allegations raised before UNDT, without identifying the specific errors of law or errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. On the Appellant’s claims relating to the use of and access to the closed-circuit television (CCTV) video...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from UNAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 UNDT judgment, UNAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...

UNAT held that while the SAB may satisfy the requirements of a neutral first instance process, its decision is only advisory or recommendatory. UNAT held that the facts did not disclose whether the Secretary-General of IMO had the power to amend the powers of the SAB retrospectively to permit the SAB to make a decision rather than a recommendation or, more pertinently, by subsequent fiat, to convert a recommendation of SAB into a decision. UNAT held that the source of the Secretary-General’s power to introduce interim measures was not clear and that there may be other constraints upon his...

Contrary to the UNDT’s finding, Mr. Kollie’s letter of 7 June 2007 to the ABCC cannot be regarded as a request under Article 17 of the Appendix D to convene a medical board and reconsider the Secretary-General’s decision. Nor can the emails of 25/27 July 2017 and 24 August 2017 be regarded as a review of the 16 May 2017 decision of the Secretary-General or an administrative decision under Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. The emails of 25/27 July 2017 constituted an implied appealable decision by the ABCC to reject Mr. Kollie’s claim for reimbursement of his out-of-pocket expenses. But...