In her appeal, the Appellant contended that the Organisation owed her a duty of care as a result of the actions of its representatives. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not produce any evidence that the invoked injury was the result of negligence or fraud caused by a specific act or omission of the UN or one of its representatives, or of the fact that the Organisation was aware of the fraud prior to the Appellant鈥檚 allegations. UNAT held that the Appellant鈥檚 claim for damages could not be entertained as there was no nexus between the fraud and the UN, nor was the Organisation aware of the...