UNDT/2020/009, Ho
The case is moot since a cheque for the reimbursement of a dental claim was already issued prior to the filing of this application. There is no longer any administrative decision to be contested, and the dispute is resolved. It appears that the only remaining issue is an arrangement to make a payment of the bank fee by issuing a cheque or transferring money to the Applicant’s account. This is not a legal question for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon. Regarding moral damages, she has failed to provide any evidence to support her claim of moral damages in either her request for management evaluation or her application to this Tribunal. Under art. 10.5(b) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute, compensation for harm should be supported by evidence, and as the Appeals Tribunal held, “the testimony of the complainant is not sufficient without corroboration by independent evidence (expert or otherwise)”. Therefore, the Tribunal must reject the request for moral damages.
Decisions concerning the reimbursement of a dental claim in the amount of USD29.81 and a bank fee charged for a returned cheque in the amount of USD25.
Just as a person may not bring a case about an already resolved controversy (res judicata) so too he should not be able to continue a case when the controversy is resolved during its pendency. The doctrine accordingly recognizes that when a matter is resolved before judgment, judicial economy dictates that the courts abjure decision. Under art. 10.5(b) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute, compensation for harm should be supported by evidence.