¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. UNAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before UNDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. UNAT held that failing...

UNAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant’s application to UNDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant’s claim that UNDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

UNAT considered whether exceptional circumstances should apply to the Appellant’s appeal, under Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its conclusion that absent a full explanation for the five-month delay after her discharge from the hospital, the Appellant could not avail herself of the plea of exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

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...

Summary Judgment The Tribunal noted that Summary Judgment can only be entered in a case where the material facts are not in dispute and a party to case is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further that for a party to seek Summary Judgment, it has to be on the merits of the case and such a party should have pleaded facts in relation to the case. The Respondent had not pleaded any material facts and had also not joined issues with the Applicant on the merits of the case. Receivability In determining the receivability of the Application, the Tribunal addressed the Applicant’s access to...

Management evaluation: The Applicant requested management evaluation of each of the administrative decisions that he challenged before the Tribunal. Mediation: the Tribunal found that mediation was sought by the Respondent regarding the proposed disciplinary measure of demotion but the discussion between the Applicant and the ombudsman, went beyond the scope of the demotion. Mediation was sought within the deadline for filing the Application. The time for filling an Application starts from the date when mediation breaks down therefore the application was filed within the applicable time limits...

The Tribunal decided that the application was filed out of time and was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the application which was filed on behalf of the incapacitated Applicant by her spouse, ought to have been filed within one year of 8 October 2014, that is, by 8 October 2015. It was instead filed on 23 March 2016, way out of time.

The Applicant failed to comply with art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the UNDT Statute, because he did not file his application until more than one year after the 90-day statutory deadline. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. The Tribunal also held that the Applicant failed to articulate any exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

While the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation before filing this application, she was, however, required to file her application with UNDT within; 90 calendar days of receiving the contested decision. The Applicant’s 25 March 2018 motion for waiver failed to comply with the stringent requirement pronounced by the Appeal’s Tribunal in Thiam because it was not filed prior to the filing of her substantive application but more than five months after the fact. Additionally, the Applicant’s passing mention of receivability in her 17 October 2017 application cannot be...

The fact that the application was filed on 25 June 2019, a day after the deadline, was not disputed. The contested decision was sent to the Applicant on 25 March 2019, though he maintained that he saw it on 26 March 2019. Even if the Applicant considered 26 March 2019 to have been the date of receipt of the contested decision, the deadline for filing the application would still have been Monday, 24 June 2019. The argument that the Respondent should be considered to have consented to the jurisdiction of the Court since he failed to raise the jurisdictional challenge in time was found to be...