Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s lack of jurisdiction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was one single claim with two heads of damages, one relating to the gross negligence by the Administration and one relating to the amount of compensation awarded to Mr Wamalala, was seriously flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Wamalala¡¯s claim of negligence constituted a separate basis for compensation outside of the framework of Appendix D to the Staff Regulations and Rules, the workers¡¯ compensation system. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a workers¡¯ compensation system is a no-fault insurance or scheme whereby employers must cover occupational injury or illness and that employees do not have to prove employer¡¯s negligence in order to obtain benefits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a claim of gross negligence against the Administration is a separate action which could not be included in a claim made by a staff member under Appendix D. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Wamalala did not submit his claim of gross negligence to the Secretary-General for consideration and decision and subsequently for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his claim was not receivable ratione materiae and the claim of gross negligence was not receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the claim of gross negligence was receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.