Â鶹´«Ã½

UNAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the UNRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, UNAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the administrative decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in fact in finding that the Appellants should have reasonably known all relevant facts of the contested decision by 31 March 2019 because the finding was based on an inaccurate and incomplete review of the evidence. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred finding the applications not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT remanded the cases to UNRWA DT for additional findings of fact and vacated the UNRWA DT Judgment.