2015-UNAT-503

2015-UNAT-503, Hepworth

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2013/151 by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law in breaching the confidentiality of a letter and Note to File previously ordered to be kept confidential and UNAT granted the Secretary-General’s motion to redact those paragraphs of the impugned judgment. UNAT held that UNDT made several errors of law: (1) by reviewing de novo the impugned decision; (2) by failing to recognise, respect and abide by UNAT jurisprudence; and (3) by finding that the surrounding circumstances created an implied promise that Mr Hepworth’s appointment would be renewed. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law and fact when it shifted the burden to UNEP to show that the decision not to renew Mr Hepworth’s appointment was not motivated by improper reasons. UNAT held that UNDT made numerous errors of law and fact when it concluded that it was unlawful for UNEP not to renew Mr Hepworth’s appointment, and the UNDT judgment should be reversed. UNAT ordered the redaction of paragraphs relating to confidential material, granted the Secretary-General’s appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Mr Hepworth contested the decision not to renew his contract. UNDT found against Mr Hepworth, and that his refusal to accept a reassignment constituted a valid reason for the non-renewal. On appeal, UNAT found that UNDT committed an error in procedure when Mr Hepworth was not given an opportunity to call witnesses at trial. The case was remanded to UNDT. In judgment UNDT/2013/151, UNDT concluded that the non-renewal decision was based on unlawful grounds.

Legal Principle(s)

The principle of stare decisis creates foreseeable and predictable results within the system of internal justice. A fixed-term appointment has no expectation of renewal or conversion to another type of appointment. The burden is on the staff member to show a legitimate expectancy of renewal or that the non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment was arbitrary or motivated by bias, prejudice or improper motive against the staff member.

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

Hepworth

Entity

UNEP

Case Number(s)

2014-573

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York