Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the facts were not disputed in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal addressed errors of law and fact, maintaining that the Organisation was liable for accidents that occur on the way home, either directly or by a detour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment very clearly stated the applicable law in Appendix D of the Staff Rules and that there was no error in the ABCC¡¯s practice not to cover injuries sustained during travel to and from work by an indirect route. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appeal only addressed the award of material damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was entitled to one year¡¯s gross base salary apart from sick leave for the period of his certified illness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of twelve months¡¯ gross base salary for material damages as a result of the non-renewal was not disproportionate, taking into account his service from 2003 to 2011. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had thoroughly examined the governing principles in awarding damages and followed the jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed...

On appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court¡¯s evaluation of the Applicant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in determining that the contested decision was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the staff member could not challenge the decision not to reinstate him because he had entered a binding contract with the Administration when he signed the offer of appointment or the letter of appointment, both of which were silent about reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the reinstatement was not foreclosed by the absence of a reference...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was persuaded for reasons of equity and good faith by the Appellant¡¯s arguments rather than those put forward by the Secretary-General, although it did not accept the entirety of the Appellant¡¯s arguments on the discontinuation issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in failing to give due consideration to the arguments raised by the Appellant regarding the years 1989 to 1997, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in retroactively applying former Staff Rule 104. 3 set forth in ST/SGB/2003/1 to the entirety of his service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was entitled to rely on the statutory provisions in force when he last...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the award of costs, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the calling of a witness in good faith and with the reasonable aim to bolster the views of the Administration did not constitute an abuse of process warranting the award of legal costs and granted the appeal on that point. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the award of prospective compensation of the monetary equivalent of the Special Post Allowance for an uncertain duration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the award of compensation for loss of opportunity...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact in ordering the refund of the recovery of the overpayments for two months. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Ten Have was aware of the overpayment in April 2013 and therefore, the general rule of Section 3. 1 of ST/AI//2009/1 was applicable and the recovery of the two months overpayments was not excessive since the limit of two years could not be applied due to the staff member¡¯s awareness of the overpayments as of April 2013, regardless of her previous ignorance or bona fide. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that as no request for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to determine or assume that the injury was service-related; to assume that there was a likelihood of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) would have reached a different conclusion had it followed the correct procedure; that the ABCC made its recommendations based on uncertain facts and inference which were derived, improbably, from the absence of evidence; that after the second accident, the staff member was permanently disabled and unable to work...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...