¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2009/080, Jennings

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Outcome: In the exercise of its discretion under article 35 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal found that it would be in the interests of justice to grant the respondent an extension of time for the filing of his reply until 21 December 2009, in order to allow the Tribunal to proceed with this matter without any further delays.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

On 30 October 2009, the applicant filed an application under staff rule 11.4, contesting the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. On 6 November 2009, approximately three weeks before the expiration of the time limit for the filing of a reply, the respondent requested an extension of time until 22 January 2010 to submit his reply. The applicant filed an objection to the respondent’s request.

Legal Principle(s)

Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure deals specifically with the time limits fixed by the Rules of Procedure, and should therefore be applied by the Tribunal when dealing with the time limit for the filing of a reply, set forth in article 10.1. Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure deals generally with case management and is more appropriate for orders relating to time limits that are not set forth in the Rules of Procedure. In deciding whether to grant the respondent’s request for an extension of time in this case, the Tribunal is vested with a discretion to do so in the interests of justice, in such manner and subject to such terms as it deems just. In exercising that discretion the Tribunal will have regard to what is fair to the parties and will weigh all relevant factors, including potential prejudice to both parties, the adequacy of the reasons advanced, the timeliness of the request, and the effect the extension of time will have on the proceedings. Adequate pleadings that are necessary for the purpose of determining the real issue in dispute between the parties must be allowed.

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/ Appellants
Jennings
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Document Topic/Theme :