��ż���

In the case at hand there is clearly a lack of mens rea. The Respondent failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the contention that the Applicant unlawfully made any misrepresentation or had any intent to defraud or deceive when submitting her request. She did not knowingly misrepresent or submit falsified documents. She submitted a birth certificate containing the names and occupation of both parents. She did not lie while filling her Questionnaire on Dependency Status (Form P84) as she wrote that she was single, and logically and truthfully answered “N/A” when asked after “is your...

The Tribunal held that the facts upon which the disciplinary sanction was issued were proven by claer and convincing evidence and very serious. The Applicant admitted the facts upon which the discipline was imposted. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's various arguments for which she failed to return monies erroneously deposited to her personal account by UNFCU, holding that there was no evidence that the Applicant was entitled to Appendix D or separation benefits, that the failure by UNFCU to provide specifics of who had made the erroneous transfer was irrelevant. The Tribunal further...

The Tribunal found that in this case, the evidence adduced by the Respondent was neither clear nor convincing. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to show that it was highly probable that the Applicant had committed the alleged misconduct and thus had failed to meet its burden of proof. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided to:

a. Rescind the decision to separate the Applicant from service;

b. Set the amount of compensation that the Respondent may elect to pay in lieu of implementing the rescission at two years net salary with interest at the US prime rate from...

The application is DISMISSED as not receivable.

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.

The UNAT held that the former staff member failed to provide evidence to prove entitlement to compensation for harm suffered. In particular, the UNAT found that no evidence was submitted proving a nexus between the illegality committed and any harm suffered by the former staff member as a result. The UNAT highlighted that the medical report submitted by the former staff member recorded that she had complained of lack of sleep and headaches “for several years” and that such symptoms were consistent with a previous diagnosed medical condition.

As to the costs of the appeal, since there was no...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred in fact when it had not considered separation on retirement, mentioned in the separation notice, to be the reason for the contested decision; the mention of retirement had no import on the staff member’s separation. The UNAT was of the view that the letter informing her of the expiry of her fixed-term appointment was in line with the abolition of the post she encumbered.

The UNAT noted that judicial review in the context of suspension of action is different from the review conducted by the Tribunal...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the US prime rate. The Applicant’s claim for financial and...

UNAT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr. Mukhopadhyay had been reinstated further to the First Judgment, the appeal of the Second Judgment had become moot as there could be no entitlement to termination notice pursuant to the applicable Regulations and Rules. UNAT thus granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Second Judgment.

UNAT found not receivable Mr. Mukhopadhyay’s cross-appeal requesting an award for consequential damages, compensation for moral damages and costs. UNAT found that he had made these claims for the first time on appeal and was...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the US prime rate. The Applicant’s claim for financial and...