2020-惇蹋厙AT-1058

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. 惇蹋厙AT held that he did not demonstrate that 惇蹋厙DT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. 惇蹋厙AT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. 惇蹋厙AT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the 惇蹋厙DT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his continuing appointment for unsatisfactory performance. As part of the proceedings, 惇蹋厙DT issued Case Management Order Nos. 184 (NY/2019) and 169 (NY/2019). The Applicant then filed an appeal against Order No. 184 (NY/2019) and requested that Order Nos. 184 (NY/2019) and 169 (NY/2019) be rescinded and that the case be remanded to 惇蹋厙DT.

Legal Principle(s)

惇蹋厙DT has broad discretion with respect to case management. Interlocutory appeals on matters of evidence, procedure, and trial conduct are not receivable. An interlocutory appeal is only receivable in cases where 惇蹋厙DT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. If 惇蹋厙DT errs in law in making an interlocutory decision and the issue can be properly raised later in an appeal against the final judgment on the merits, there is no need to allow an appeal against the interlocutory decision.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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

Nadeau

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement