Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact when it concluded that the Administration, having issued the offer of appointment on the basis of a factual error to an ineligible candidate who was legally barred from being recruited, had a duty to withdraw the offer, as soon as the mistake was discovered; and that the Administration was legally precluded from issuing a letter of appointment to the Appellant. UNAT held that, on the basis that it had concluded that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact, it was unnecessary to examine the other grounds of appeal advanced by the Appellant. UNAT did not endorse the UNDT’s reasoning that the contract concluded was void ab initio since it was a clear contradiction within the applicable law or that there was a de facto contractual relationship for services rendered between the Appellant and the Organisation. Applying the maxim that he that comes to equity must come with clean hands, UNAT held that the Appellant could not be allowed to knowingly breach the rules, engage in an activity which was unlawful, and then seek compensation. UNAT held that the Appellant’s conduct was self-serving and unlawful, that he knew or ought to have known the law when he applied for the position, and that he breached the law. UNAT held that the Organisation could not be made liable and that the Appellant could not be awarded damages. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.