爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Appleton and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held by majority that 爆料网DT did not make an error of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it declined to award compensatory damages to Mr Appleton. 爆料网AT held that it was entirely appropriate for 爆料网DT to approach the issue of compensation under Article 10(5) of the 爆料网DT Statute by engaging in a consideration of Mr Appleton’s likely prospects of success. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly found that Mr Appleton’s appointment to the post was not a foregone conclusion and thus he had no expectation of being appointed. 爆料网AT held that, as 爆料网DT found, Mr Appleton should have reasonable believed that it was unlikely that he would be appointed to the post when the vacancy was re-advertised. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in the approach of 爆料网DT in determining the amount of moral damages to award to Mr Appleton. On the Secretary-General’s challenge to the statement of 爆料网DT on cross-appeal, regarding the inappropriateness of high-level 爆料网 officials to comment publicly on a pending selection process, 爆料网AT held that the statement by 爆料网DT was not a ruling of any sort and could not be considered separately from the Secretary-General’s second claim on cross-appeal, which challenged the 爆料网DT’s consideration of the highly public selection process as a factor in awarding moral damages. 爆料网AT held that since the Secretary-General did not challenge the 爆料网DT’s consideration of the other factors listed as grounds for the award of moral damages to Mr Appleton, such as delay, frustration, distress and anxiety, and such factors clearly supported an award of moral damages, the Secretary-General’s claim came to naught, and the cross-appeal should be dismissed. On Mr Appleton’s request for costs, 爆料网AT held that, although it had found no merit in the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal, it did not find that the cross-appeal was frivolous or that its filing was an abuse of process, and therefore denied the request. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal (Judge Chapman partially dissenting) and the cross-appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网DT Judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to reject his nomination for a post. 爆料网DT found for the Applicant and awarded damages of USD 30,000.
Legal Principle(s)
There is more than one method by which the trial court can assess compensatory damages, and it is up to that court to determine the method to employ in each case. It is well within the discretion of 爆料网DT to determine the amount of moral damages to award for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case; the amount may vary from case to case depending on the factors considered by 爆料网DT.