Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, UNAT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. UNAT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the UNAT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...

UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. UNAT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the UNDT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant’s right to due process of law was not violated. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered Mr Al-Mulla’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-226. UNAT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered a writ of mandamus from Ms Wesslund, who requested that UNAT order UNDT to accept her applications. UNAT held that because it did not have inherent or original jurisdiction outside its capacity as an appellate body, it considered the motion for writ of mandamus to be an appeal against UNDT Order No. 100 (NY/2013). UNAT held that the appeal was received beyond the deadline for appeal. Noting that Ms Wesslund did not apply to UNAT for an extension or waive of the applicable time limits, UNAT held that the appeal of the Order was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the...

UNAT considered the Applicant’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-209. UNAT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant’s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. UNAT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

Noting that no request to waive the deadline was received, UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable for failure to appeal within the statutory deadline.

UNAT held that, absent a request for waiver or extension of the time limits as well as any factors that would qualify as exceptional circumstances, the appeal was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

UNAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-UNAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). UNAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. UNAT held that the UNAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. UNAT held that the application for...

The issue for determination by UNAT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General’s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the UNDT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before UNDT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General’s counsel of record before UNAT. UNAT held that in the absence of any published UNDT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of UNDT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...