Bad faith (712,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Bad faith
Total judgments found: 31

< previous | 1, 2

• 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:

  abuse of power; bad faith; burden of proof; 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 3121

  
  113th Session, 2012
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  It should first be noted that bad faith on the part of a debtor, whatever the source of his or her obligation, does not in principle prevent a debt from being extinguished by prescription.
  That will only occur if the debtor has used deception to prevent the creditor from taking action before the expiry of the prescription period. Moreover, an ordinary prescription period formally laid down will not normally apply if the debt arises from a criminal act, in which case the prescription period for criminal proceedings will apply.

  Keywords:

  bad faith; debt; recovery of overpayment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3092

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

  Considerations 16-18

  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;
  

< previous | 1, 2