¹ú²úAV

On appeal, UNAT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. UNAT further held that UNRWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court’s evaluation of the Applicant...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that UNDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. UNAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to UNDT for his witness to be called. UNAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the UNDT judgment and that it was not clear that UNDT had considered that evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by UNDT for not calling the witness. UNAT held that UNDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

UNAT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (UNRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2014/027. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the UNRWA DT judgment and affirmed UNRWA DT’s reasoning. UNAT denied the Appellant’s request to submit new evidence to UNAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. UNAT held that it was for UNRWA DT to consider that it...

UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members’ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether UNRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. UNAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before UNRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT noted that while UNRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

UNAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which UNDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. UNAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. UNAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to UNDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated UNDT’s judgment, and remanded the matter to UNDT.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. UNAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. UNAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. UNAT further held...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. UNAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. UNAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. UNAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...

UNAT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s claim that UNRWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. UNAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. UNAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, UNAT held that that UNDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. UNAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member’s bank account. UNAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. UNAT rejected the staff member’s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. UNAT held that although the Secretary-General’s appeal had no merit, it...