Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which was limited to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission, which he claimed was excessive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Secretary-General did not contest Ms Sarrouh¡¯s claim for compensation before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, he could not raise the issue on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of in-lieu compensation was based on the uncontested evidence before it and as such, its findings were not unreasonable and it did not commit any error in its assessment of the compensation award. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in the absence of any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not interfere with the discretion vested in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to decide on a remedy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ms Sarrouh¡¯s claim for costs on the ground that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal fell well short of manifest abuse of the appeals process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ms Sarrouh contested the decision to end her assignment with the Bureau for Policy and Programme Support (BPPS) and to abolish the post she was encumbering. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that this decision was unlawful since Ms Sarrouh had not been assigned to a post with BPPS at the time she received the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the real reason for the Applicant¡¯s termination was her extended sick leave. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded the contested decision, granted compensation in lieu of rescission, and ordered moral damages.
Legal Principle(s)
A party is not permitted to raise new arguments at the appeal stage, nor can that party argue that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on questions of fact or law with respect to allegations that were not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for its consideration.