Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that UNDT’s approach, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, was reasonable. UNAT relied on its holding in Hastings (2011-UNAT-109), where it held that the trial court is in a much better position than UNAT in assessing the probabilities of a candidate being selected for a position. UNAT also found that UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant should not be awarded any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid to her. UNAT further dismissed the Appellant’s request to award costs against the Secretary-General, noting that there were no grounds to award costs to a party whose claims were rejected. UNAT reversed the imposition of costs against the Appellant after finding that the abuse of process was based on the actions of the Appellant’s counsel during trial. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for UNAT to authorise her to obtain and adduce a computation sheet from the UNJSPF of her pension losses due to her non-promotion and noted that it would be irrelevant to the determination of her appeal since UNDT did not rely upon it. UNAT further held that the recording of the UNDT hearing would not add anything to the parties’ submissions and rejected this request. UNAT also rejected the Appellant’s request to adduce, as additional evidence on appeal, the Code of Conduct, noting that it was a document of the court and did not constitute evidence. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s remaining submissions were without merit and found it unnecessary to address them. UNAT granted the appeal in part and reversed the imposition of costs against the Appellant. UNAT dismissed all other grounds of appeal.