�山����

UNAT considered Mr Elguindi, Ms Onogi and Ms Sheryda’s separate appeals. With respect to Mr Elguindi’s claim, UNAT did not find that the manner in which UNJSPF apportioned his monthly pension sum to be unreasonable, capricious or an abuse of discretion. With respect to Ms Onogi’s claim of procedural defects, UNAT was not persuaded that there were procedural flaws on the part of UNJSPF such as to render the exercise of its discretion unreasonable or unlawful. UNAT also did not find merit in Mr Elguindi’s claim of “double-dipping” in his opposition to Ms Onogi’s claim for relief from UNJSPF. UNAT was satisfied that UNJSPF, in exercising its discretion as to how to apportion Mr Elguindi’s monthly pension, correctly determined that it had to take into consideration the needs of Ms Onogi, Ms Sheryda, the minor children of Ms Sheryda and Mr Elguindi, and the needs of Mr Elguindi himself. UNAT held there was no reason to vary or set aside the decision of Uto exercise its discretion in apportioning Ms Onogi 19 per cent, Ms Sheryda 10. 5 per cent and her two minor children 19 per cent of Mr Elguindi’s monthly pension benefit. UNAT dismissed the appeals and upheld the UNDT judgment.