Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Goodwin and the Secretary-General limited to the issue of compensation. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT declined to award pecuniary damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held (with Judge Faherty dissenting) that there was no error of law or fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT such as would entitle Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to interfere with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Appellant had been properly compensated for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held t that the substantive and procedural breaches identified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of themselves merited an award of moral damages because of the harm caused to Mr Goodwin, namely his having been subjected to an improper and unlawful disciplinary process and an unlawful reassignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any error of law or fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in compensating the staff member for the stigma which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT quite properly found attached to him as a result of the Administration¡¯s actions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both appeals.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to first withdraw and then reinstate an administrative reprimand, and the decision to transfer him from his post with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found for the Applicant, awarding USD 30,000 in moral damages.
Legal Principle(s)
The trial judge is best placed to assess the nature and evidential value of the information being provided by an applicant to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to justify an award of damages, including pecuniary damages. Damages for moral injury may arise from a breach of the employee¡¯s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract of employment or from a breach of the procedural due process entitlements therein guaranteed; where the breach is of a fundamental nature, the breach may, of itself, give rise to an award of moral damages, not in any punitive sense for the fact of the breach having occurred, but rather by virtue of the harm to the employee.