¹ú²úAV

The Appellant requested that the UNDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to UNDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. UNAT agreed with the Appellant’s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. UNAT noted that, while UNDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP, UNDT’s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, UNAT found that UNDT’s refusal to allow the Appellant to call expert evidence was a clear violation of her due process and held that this constituted an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT allowed the appeal in part, set aside UNDT’s judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. Judge Weinberg de Roca partially dissented. Judge Weinberg de Roca’s partial dissent: Judge Weinberg de Roca noted that it is well within the competence of UNDT to manage cases as it sees fit and concluded that the Appellant did not demonstrate how the procedure adopted affected or violated her due process rights.