2015-UNAT-507, Porter
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. UNAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of UNDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by UNDT, if the Secretary-General chose to appeal, as the matters in issue were interconnected with the merits of the case. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s appeal was not receivable and dismissed it.
The Applicant contested the decision to keep him on medical leave for more than two years after his doctors had recommended that he was fit to return to work; the inaction and/or refusal to take him back into service for over two years; and the failure by the Administration to reimburse financial claims that accrued to him as a result of the forced medical leave. Limiting itself to the question of receivability, UNDT found the application was receivable in substance and time.
In general, only final judgments of UNDT are appealable. An interlocutory appeal is receivable where UNDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.