UNDT/2012/167 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

UNDT/2012/167, Simmons

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Respondent contends that the application is not receivable because the Applicant did not exhaust the administrative process of seeking reconsideration of her claim pursuant to art. 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable as the Respondent’s contention is not supported by a proper interpretation of art. 17.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant claims that she was unlawfully denied compensation for injuries sustained as a result of a vehicular accident while on official duty.

Legal Principle(s)

Art. 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules: If it was the intention to require a staff member, who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary-General, to seek a review as an obligatory first step before filing a claim with the Tribunal, it would have said so in clear terms. Contra proferentem: Although not considering that there is any ambiguity in the wording of art. 17 of Appendix D, the Tribunal ruled in favour of adopting the interpretation that gave rise to least injustice by applying the internationally recognized principle of interpretation that an ambiguous term of a contract is to be construed against the interests of the party which proposed or drafted the contract or clause, particularly when dealing with a provision such as art. 17 that has been unilaterally imposed by the Respondent (the principle of contra proferentem, affirmed by the Dispute Tribunal in Tolstopiatov UNDT/2010/147, para. 66).

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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

Simmons

Entity

ABCC

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NY/2010/091

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

New York