Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Goodwin¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by awarding excessive compensation to Mr Goodwin. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT relied on Larkin (judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-134) on the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s discretion to determine the amount of damages. Noting the long period before Mr Goodwin before returning to full service and that the amount of compensation awarded was based on the JAB¡¯s recommendation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that compensation in the amount of two years¡¯ net base salary was reasonable. In considering whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the Organisation condoned the unauthorised dissemination of information and basing the award of compensation, in part, on that conclusion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT relied on Lutta (judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-117), where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that it would respect the opinion of the trial judge, as the trial judge is best placed to assess the nature and evidential value of evidence submitted to justify its findings and award of damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by failing to take into account the compensation already awarded for harm to Mr Goodwin¡¯s reputation based upon the same injury and the same set of facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the present case involved claims arising out of events following the period of Mr Goodwin¡¯s SLWFP and that the amount of USD 30,000 was awarded as compensation for the harm caused to his career prospects and reputation as exacerbated by delay. In considering Mr Goodwin¡¯s cross-appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected his claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by declining to award compensation for specific financial losses and emotional stress and held that Mr Goodwin was precluded from raising these new issues as he previously failed to mention these specific harms. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Goodwin¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by declining to award costs and compensation for the delay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did err in failing to address Mr Goodwin¡¯s claim for costs, this error caused no harm to Mr Goodwin since the circumstances of his case did not justify an award of costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected this claim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Goodwin sought recission of the Respondent¡¯s rejection of the findings and recommendation of the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). The JAB found that the Respondent engaged in actions that constituted a fundamentally serious and damaging violation of Mr Goodwin¡¯s due process rights as well as to his reputation, and recommended compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered compensation in the amount of two years¡¯ net base salary effective from the date of Mr Goodwin¡¯s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (SLWFP).
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the discretion to determine the amount of damages awarded, taking into account the circumstances of the case. The trial judge is best placed to assess the nature and evidential value of evidence submitted to justify its findings and award damages. An appellant is precluded from raising new issues that could have been brought at the first-instance tribunal. A delay, in and of itself, is not a manifest abuse of proceedings. In order to award costs against the Secretary-General for a delay, it is necessary that the Secretary-General had manifestly abused the proceedings in doing so.