����AV

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal, specifically the question of whether Mr Wilson’s circumstances were sufficient to vitiate the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM’s decision. UNAT recalled the criteria set out in Sanwidi, 2010-UNAT-084 (para. 42), according to which it can interfere with an administrative decision. UNAT found that there was no basis for UNDT to conclude that “no proper consideration was given to [Mr. Wilson’s] individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception in this case. ” UNAT found that there was sufficient basis set out in the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM’s response for Mr Wilson, for the UNAT, on judicial review, to be satisfied that the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM had regard to the case put for the exemption to be granted. While UNAT noted that the Assistant Secretary-General of The Office of Human Resource Management (OHRM) could have been more discursive in her response to Mr Wilson, the fact that this did not occur did not displace the rebuttable presumption of regularity attached to the decision. UNAT concluded that the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM did not preclude the exercise of discretion, rather discretion was not exercised in his favour. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal and reversed UNDT’s judgment. Mr Wilson’s appeal on the quantum of damages was accordingly rendered moot and dismissed.