����AV

OSLA is an integral part of the Secretariat of the United Nations and that its decisions are taken under the umbrella of the Secretary-General. OSLA’s decisions may be challenged to the extent that they are strictly administrative decisions and are not related to the giving of advice to litigants or the conduct of cases before the UNDT. It must be noted however that the scope and jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not limited to the author of the decision but most importantly to its nature. In order to establish that the administrative decision impacts on the contract of employment or terms of employment, there must exist a direct causal link between the decision and the resulting effect on his appointment. The non-communication of the Judgment to the Applicant must be the direct cause in the chain of the events that led to the loss, without any intervening factor that would break that chain. The Applicant’s awareness of the Judgment constitutes that intervening factor that breaks the causal nexus between the non-communication of the Judgment and the impact on his employment. Once he became aware of the Judgment it was for him to take steps to file his appeal in a timely manner. It is the fundamental right of a person to have access to a court of law and to pursue all remedies legitimately open to him or to her. This, a party can only do, if he or she is made aware of decisions taken in his or her case. The general rule in matters of privilege, affecting the client/lawyer relationship is that any information or communication that passes between them by way of an advice or with a view to litigation would be privileged. In the present case, to reveal as a fact whether the applicant did make a request to get a copy of the Judgment could not be said to be protected by the client/lawyer privilege.