����AV

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Ms Kortes’ cross-appeal. UNAT held that the issue was whether UNDT erred in concluding that the Administration was estopped from correcting its mistake by finding that Ms Kortes was not eligible for ASHI, having advised her in 2011 that she could not avail herself of the buy-in option. Noting that the Administration’s error was to inform Ms Kortes that she could buy-in to ASHI, based on a misunderstanding of the date she joined the Organisation, UNAT held that UNDT committed an error of law in coming to its conclusion that five years was sufficient to find that the Administration should be estopped from correcting its error. Noting that both parties were to blame for the situation that arose and that estoppel is an equitable doctrine, UNAT held that it would be inequitable to stop the Administration from correcting an error to which Ms Kortes also contributed. UNAT held that Ms Kortes never had a right to qualify for ASHI and the Administration, therefore, had the right and duty to correct its administrative error. UNAT allowed the appeal, dismissed the cross-appeal, and vacated the UNDT judgment.