2016-UNAT-665, Hamdan
UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant’s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before UNRWA DT. The Appellant’s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT’s judgment.
The Applicant contested the inclusion of clause 5 in the contract, (Indemnifying UNRWA from any demands, claims, costs, or expenses arising from or in any way related to his secondment), which he signed on 31 July 2014. UNRWA DT found that the contract was binding on the Applicant and rejected his contention that he signed the contract under duress. UNRWA DT also found that the Applicant should not have been surprised when the contract included clause 5 and could not claim that he was unaware that the contract would expire at the close of business on 31 July 2014 if he did not sign the extension. UNRWA DT also noted that while the Agency had delayed addressing the financial implications associated with the Applicant’s previous contract, the delay did not constitute unfair treatment. UNRWA DT dismissed the application.
There is no expectancy of renewal of fixed-term and temporary contracts. The fact that there is no such expectancy of renewal is always expressly stated on the face of every fixed-term or temporary contract. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed in the lower court. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by the Appeals Tribunal.
No relief ordered; No relief ordered.