2013-UNAT-384, McCluskey
UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT noted that it was technically improper for UNDT to analyse the merits of the case after declaring the application time-barred. UNAT held that even if the appeal had been receivable ratione temporis, the Appellant’s claim could not succeed. UNAT held that the Appellant merely made statements and referred to facts that were not timely contested, without providing any evidence or contesting the reasoning of the first instance judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision not to make a previously offered option of an agreed separation with indemnities available to him. UNDT concluded that the application was not receivable as it was time-barred and his application lacked merit.
It is improper for UNDT to consider the merits of a case after finding it time-barred.