2016-惇蹋厙AT-665

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered whether 惇蹋厙RWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant＊s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. 惇蹋厙AT 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 惇蹋厙RWA DT. The Appellant＊s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed 惇蹋厙RWA DT＊s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the inclusion of clause 5 in the contract, (Indemnifying 惇蹋厙RWA from any demands, claims, costs, or expenses arising from or in any way related to his secondment), which he signed on 31 July 2014. 惇蹋厙RWA DT found that the contract was binding on the Applicant and rejected his contention that he signed the contract under duress. 惇蹋厙RWA 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. 惇蹋厙RWA 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. 惇蹋厙RWA DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

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.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT 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.

Applicants/Appellants

Hamdan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement