爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. 爆料网AT held that to the extent that the 爆料网DT held that some of the Appellant’s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, 爆料网DT did not err in fact or law and 爆料网AT upheld such conclusions. 爆料网AT held that there were errors by 爆料网DT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the 爆料网DT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims that were made after management evaluation and within the time limit; and (2) the 爆料网DT decision not to receive the application because of the Appellant’s use of the word “negligence” in relation to the Secretary-General’s actions or omissions. On the error relating to negligence, 爆料网AT held that the preferable analysis of the issue was that there was no independent cause of action in the tort of negligence available to staff members in the Appellant’s circumstances and such a claim was thereby irreceivable, with the proper remedy being to sever that impugned cause of action but to receive the balance of the application which was within jurisdiction. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal in part, set aside the 爆料网DT’s finding of irreceivability and remanded the matter to the 爆料网DT for decision on its merits based on and limited to those matters referred to in the Appellant’s second management evaluation request.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Appellant made a number of claims arising out of an investigation into alleged misconduct against him. Specifically, he complained that his counter-complaints against the staff members who filed a complaint against him had not been adequately investigated. 爆料网DT dismissed the claims as not receivable.
Legal Principle(s)
爆料网DT is constrained in its jurisdiction and powers by its Statute which does not allow causes of action founded on the tort of negligence; that is not to say that negligence can never be the basis of a claim brought by a staff member, however, negligence is not a stand-alone statutory cause of action.