2014-UNAT-476 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2014-UNAT-476, Machanguana

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal limited to the Appellant’s claim that UNDT erred in awarding costs against him. UNAT noted that the jurisdiction of a tribunal to award costs is narrowly restricted to instances where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings. UNAT found that UNDT gave no reasons for its determination that the Appellant had manifestly abused the proceedings, cited no evidence establishing that his application was frivolous or vexatious, or that he had deliberately delayed the proceedings, or had disobeyed an order of UNDT or had, in any other way, abused UNDT’s proceedings. UNAT held that UNDT had no grounds for its finding that the Appellant’s application was an abuse of process and, therefore, erred in ordering the costs against him. UNAT allowed the appeal and vacated the UNDT’s order for costs.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant challenged the administrative decision to demote him from one level (G-7 to G-6). UNDT dismissed the application, finding that the facts, on which the disciplinary sanction was based, were established and undisputed. UNDT held that the facts amounted to misconduct and that the sanction was not disproportionate to the offence. UNDT found that the Applicant’s application constituted an abuse of process and awarded costs against him.

Legal Principle(s)

The jurisdiction of a tribunal to award costs is narrowly restricted by statute to cases in which it determines that a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it. It is incumbent on a tribunal awarding costs to state the reasons on which its award of costs is based.

Outcome

Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Machanguana

Entity

UNICEF

Case Number(s)

2013-549

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York