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

Bad faith (712,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Bad faith
Total judgments found: 14

  • Judgment 4161


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a settlement agreement.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    It is well established in the case law that “bad faith cannot be presumed, it must be proven. Additionally, bad faith requires an element of malice, ill will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose” (see Judgment 2800, consideration 21, cited in Judgment 3154, consideration 7; see also Judgment 3902, consideration 11). What is more, “misuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it” (see Judgment 3939, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3154, 3902, 3939

    Keywords:

    bad faith; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 4067


    127th Session, 2019
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his contract.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    As is well established, bad faith or misuse of authority must be proved and is never presumed, and the party alleging bad faith or misuse of authority must prove it (see, for example, Judgments 2800, consideration 21, and 3939, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3939

    Keywords:

    bad faith; burden of proof; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 4003


    126th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for damages related to her arrest and detention in Libya while on an official mission.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The Tribunal finds that the reasons given in the [...] decision to reject the complainant’s claim for compensation were not supported by the evidence. Moreover, the Registrar relied on documents to which he refused to give the complainant access, while mischaracterizing the findings of those documents in a clear breach of her due process rights. He also misinformed the complainant that he had been ordered to destroy the consultant’s report and therefore could not give her a copy while knowing full well that the disclosure of the report to the complainant had already been approved. This constitutes an act of bad faith. The Registrar’s correspondence with the complainant shows that he repeatedly threatened her with charges of misconduct and possible disciplinary action unless she accepted the ICC’s offer during conciliation proceedings. This was an abuse of power and further evidence of bad faith.

    Keywords:

    bad faith; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3996


    126th Session, 2018
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate her claim of harassment, the decision to permanently transfer her and the decision to offer her an extension of appointment in her new position.

    Consideration 4B

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant bears the burden of proving malice, bad faith or misuse of authority (see Judgment 3743, under 12, and the judgments cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3743

    Keywords:

    bad faith; burden of proof; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3969


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The [President's] analysis contains a material flaw. It introduces into an assessment of whether an individual acted in good faith in the context of disciplinary proceedings a concept that, in this context, is irrelevant and likely to mislead. It may be true that for the purposes of the law of agency as it might apply, for example, to the negotiation and finalisation of contracts, the conduct of a lawyer (and less likely that of a medical adviser) can be treated as the conduct of the lawyer’s client. The lawyer, in such cases, is the client’s agent. However, it does not follow that, for the purpose of evaluating misconduct, the way the lawyer approaches the resolution of a legal question and interacts with third parties can be attributed to the client, in the sense that the lawyer’s conduct is to be treated as a manifestation of the state of mind of the client, above and beyond the conduct of the client herself or himself. While lawyers should act on instructions, it is often the case that, as a practical matter, they have considerable latitude about how they go about acting for the client. In the present case, it cannot be assumed, as the President appears to have assumed, that the lawyer had a sufficient grasp of the Service Regulations to know that Article 14 operated in the way discussed by the Tribunal in preceding considerations, and that Article 62a and the implementing rules did not modify its effect. On final analysis, the lawyer’s approach was misconceived but that does not justify the attribution of bad faith either to him or, more importantly, to the complainant.

    Keywords:

    bad faith; counsel;



  • Judgment 3927


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay for three months for misconduct.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant asserts that the Director General was biased against her and that his decision to suspend her was vitiated by malice against her for her role as a staff representative. These allegations are unfounded. She has not provided any persuasive evidence to substantiate them, whereas the consistent case law of the Tribunal requires that such allegations be proved, since bias and bad faith cannot be presumed (see Judgments 3886, consideration 8, and 3738, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3738, 3886

    Keywords:

    bad faith; bias; burden of proof;



  • Judgment 3902


    125th Session, 2018
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay him the indemnity due in the event of the closure of the CDE.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    A steady line of precedent has it that “bad faith cannot be presumed, it must be proven. Additionally, bad faith requires an element of malice, ill will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose” (see Judgment 2800, under 21, cited in Judgment 3154, under 7; see also Judgment 3407, under 15).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3154, 3407

    Keywords:

    bad faith; burden of proof;



  • Judgment 3886


    124th Session, 2017
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his request for a job grading review.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [B]ad faith must be proven, not assumed[...].

    Keywords:

    bad faith;



  • Judgment 3853


    124th Session, 2017
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory service.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant bears the burden of establishing bad faith (see, for example, Judgments 1776, consideration 24, 3407, consideration 15, and 3738, consideration 9) [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1776, 3407, 3738

    Keywords:

    bad faith; burden of proof;



  • Judgment 3743


    123rd Session, 2017
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant bears the burden of proving malice, bad faith or misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3543, consideration 20, and 3678, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3543, 3678

    Keywords:

    bad faith; malice; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3738


    123rd Session, 2017
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his claim for a termination indemnity.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [A]s the Tribunal has consistently held, bad faith cannot be presumed and hence will not be established unless evidence thereof is provided (see, for example, Judgments 2282, under 6, 2293, under 11, 2800, under 21, or 3407, under 15).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2282, 2293, 2800, 3407

    Keywords:

    bad faith;



  • Judgment 3737


    123rd Session, 2017
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that he was subjected to harassment.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [B]ad faith cannot be presumed and hence will likewise not be established unless evidence thereof is produced (see, for example, Judgments 2282, under 6, 2293, under 11, 2800, under 21, or 3407, under 15).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2282, 2293, 2800, 3407

    Keywords:

    bad faith;



  • Judgment 3092


    112th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 16 to 18

    Extract:

    With respect to the claim for exemplary damages, the Tribunal notes that in general these awards are meant to sanction bias, ill will, malice, bad faith, and other improper purpose. Although the complainant broadly alleges bias, conflict of interest, malice, bad faith, and other improper motivation in her pleadings, she does not separately analyse the grounds upon which an award of exemplary damages could rest. In Judgment 2762 involving similar allegations, under 25, the Tribunal held that:
    “the main thrust of the complaint is the allegation of abuse of authority, conflict of interest, bias and bad faith […]. At this juncture, it should be noted that in the complainant’s submissions there is no separate analysis for each of these allegations. Instead, the complainant uses the terms almost interchangeably. For the purpose of this discussion, it is not necessary to engage in a separate legal analysis for each of the allegations.”
    Further, in Judgment 2293, under 12, the Tribunal noted:
    “Although to act in bad faith is always to mismanage, the reverse is not the case and honest mistakes or even sheer stupidity will not, without more, be enough. Bad faith requires an element of malice, ill will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose.”
    In the present case, a review of the overall procedure and the Administration’s specific decisions and conduct, which the complainant alleges demonstrate improper purposes or motives, are equally amenable to explanations that do not involve bad faith, but rather a lack of diligence in processing the claim in a timely manner. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that an award of exemplary damages is not warranted in the circumstances.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2293, 2762

    Keywords:

    bad faith; exemplary damages;



  • Judgment 2800


    106th Session, 2009
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    "While international organisations have a broad discretion in relation to the abolition of posts, the decision to abolish a post will be reviewable where it can be established that the decision was taken in bad faith."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; bad faith; decision; discretion; limits;


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top