ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Estoppel (675,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Estoppel
Total judgments found: 8

  • Judgment 3950


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    In relation to the principle of res judicata, the case law of the Tribunal presently provides, as exemplified by Judgment 3867, consideration 9, that “the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action must be the same as in the earlier case for the principle of res judicata to apply (see, for example, Judgments 1216, under 3, 2993, under 6, or 3248, under 3)”. Whether this now states, too narrowly, the applicable principle or principles involving estoppel, such as “issue estoppel” or abuse of process, and would preclude a complainant re-agitating substantially the same issues based on substantially the same evidence is a matter to be resolved in other proceedings in due course and not in the present proceedings.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 2993, 3248, 3867

    Keywords:

    estoppel; res judicata;



  • Judgment 3942


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reinstate her in her former position.

    Considerations 8 and 9

    Extract:

    The Tribunal accepts [...] that the executive head of an organisation has a discretionary power to review an earlier decision and can, for good reason and acting bone fide, vary or rescind that decision (see, for example, Judgment 618, consideration 5, though compare Judgment 3871, consideration 3), unless the earlier decision is immune from revision either because of the effect of normative legal documents within the organisation such as staff rules or regulations, or because of the application of principles found in the Tribunal’s case law such as promissory estoppel (see, for example, Judgment 1781, considerations 12 to 14). But the rationale for the reversal decision, in the present case, does not withstand close scrutiny. [...]
    It is true that the remedy chosen in the decision [...] certainly compensated the complainant, financially, for the direct effect of the unlawful non-renewal of her contract as an act of retaliation. However, that decision fails to recognise that bare financial compensation for lost income arising directly from non-renewal of the complainant’s contract for an unlawful reason might be an insufficient remedy. This failure is an error of law involving a failure to take into account relevant considerations.

    Keywords:

    estoppel; moral damages; non-renewal of contract; withdrawal of decision;



  • Judgment 3729


    123rd Session, 2017
    Permanent Court of Arbitration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the terms on which her appointment was terminated.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Had that point concerning receivability been raised in the internal appeal, it may have had prospects of success in these proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1653, consideration 6, 3181, consideration 11, and 3577, considerations 8 and 9). But it was not raised in the internal appeal and, accordingly, cannot now be relied upon for the first time by the PCA in these proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 2255, considerations 12 and 13, and 3160, consideration 14). Accordingly, the PCA’s contention concerning receivability is rejected.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1653, 2255, 3160, 3181, 3577

    Keywords:

    estoppel; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3648


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which she participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he submissions show that WIPO did not claim that the complainant had no cause of action at any time during the internal appeal proceedings, yet such an objection could equally have been raised at that stage, and WIPO does not mention any circumstance that prevented it from so doing. The Tribunal has on a number of occasions held that in such circumstances an organisation may not raise such an objection for the first time in the proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1655, under 9 and 10, 2255, under 12 to 14, and 3160, under 14).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1655, 2255, 3160

    Keywords:

    cause of action; estoppel;



  • Judgment 3647


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he submissions show that WIPO did not claim that the complainant had no cause of action at any time during the internal appeal proceedings, yet such an objection could equally have been raised at that stage and WIPO does not mention any circumstance that prevented it from so doing. The Tribunal has on a number of occasions held that in such circumstances an organisation may not raise such an objection for the first time in the proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1655, under 9 and 10, 2255, under 12 to 14, and 3160, under 14).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1655, 2255, 3160

    Keywords:

    estoppel; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal [...] notes that during the initial competition WIPO must perforce have accepted that the complainant met all of the conditions required by the vacancy announcement since, far from being excluded from the competition at the outset, the complainant was shortlisted for an interview with the Appointment and Promotion Board. It is hence inappropriate for WIPO to suddenly advance this objection, which is apt to cast doubt on the lawfulness of its own conduct.

    Keywords:

    estoppel;



  • Judgment 3614


    121st Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to allow her to benefit from the transitional measure accompanying the replacement of the former invalidity pension with an invalidity allowance.

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "The final subsidiary argument concerns the principle of estoppel. This argument is apparently based on the fact that the EPO, in the internal appeal, initially accepted that the internal appeal was in part admissible but subsequently changed its position and argued that it was inadmissible in its entirety. [...] As the EPO argues in its reply, an element of the principle is that a person has acted to their detriment by relying on some statement or representation of fact made by another. While the EPO did seemingly change its position, there is nothing to suggest that this led to the complainant acting to her detriment. She had an opportunity to respond to the final position of the EPO though she was unsuccessful in her arguments. Again this argument is rejected. In any event, it was open to the IAC to address the question of the receivability of the appeal in its entirety irrespective of the position adopted by the EPO."

    Keywords:

    estoppel;



  • Judgment 3160


    114th Session, 2013
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    There are a number of decisions of this Tribunal in which an organisation has not been permitted to maintain an argument concerning the receivability of a complaint that was not raised in the internal appeal preceding the complaint to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2255, considerations 12 to 14). The principle that the failure to raise the issue of receivability in an internal appeal precludes the argument being raised before the Tribunal exists to further the interests of justice.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2255

    Keywords:

    estoppel; internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint; reply;



  • Judgment 592


    51st Session, 1983
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The organisation argues that by accepting the final extension of his appointment, the complainant waived his right to appeal and the complaint is irreceivable because it is in breach of the principles of good faith and estoppel. The Tribunal holds that waiver of a right to bring action may not be presumed; waiver is binding only if it is express or clearly implied on the facts. Mere acceptance of a decision giving him partial satisfaction does not necessarily denote waiver of the claims which had not yet been met.

    Keywords:

    acceptance; condition; contract; estoppel; extension; good faith; receivability of the complaint; waiver of right of appeal;


 
Last updated: 12.08.2019 ^ top