## ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND — ORDER No. 2016-1

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND — ORDER No. 2016-1](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2016-1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2016-1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2016-1.pdf.json)

---

Mr. “LL”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Suspension of the Pleadings and Denial of Provisional Relief)

### Background and procedural history
- Applicant filed an Application with the Administrative Tribunal on December 28, 2015.  
- Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule XII on March 3, 2016.  
- Applicant filed an Objection to the Motion on March 24, 2016.  
- The Tribunal requested additional Comments and Information; four further submissions of the parties were filed on June 2, 8, 13, and 22, 2016.  
- Applicant sought to file an additional submission on June 24, 2016; the President of the Tribunal concluded that submission would not be accepted for filing as not relevant to the issues pending concerning suspension of the pleadings and provisional relief.  
- Applicant sought anonymity pursuant to Rule XXII; the Tribunal granted anonymity because matters relating to Applicant’s health were central to the controversy.  
- The Application challenges Fund decisions to:  
  - deny Applicant’s request for compensation for alleged administrative failures and abuse of discretion in the delayed award of a workers’ compensation annuity;  
  - require Applicant to repay benefits granted from the Separation Benefits Fund (SBF) in light of the award of the workers’ compensation annuity; and  
  - deny Applicant’s request for compensation for alleged premature separation from the Fund and failure to provide workers’ compensation special leave.  
- Respondent conceded that the claims presented are “themselves ripe for resolution by the Tribunal” but argued that closely related claims were pending before the Administration Committee of the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) and several Grievances pending in the Grievance Committee.

### Suspension of the pleadings — Tribunal findings and ruling
- Legal standard cited: the Tribunal has summarily dismissed applications where claims are “closely allied” with claims pending in channels of administrative review (citing prior IMFAT judgments). The rationale is to serve the “twin goals” of Article V’s exhaustion requirement: “providing opportunities for resolution of the dispute and for building a detailed record in the event of subsequent adjudication.”  
- The Tribunal found that matters pending before the Grievance Committee and the SRP Administration Committee are closely related to the challenges raised in the Application.  
- The Tribunal concluded that deciding the Application before the related administrative bodies acted would be inconsistent with the purposes of the exhaustion requirement and would not serve the interests of justice given unresolved questions about the legal relationship among separation for medical reasons, workers’ compensation benefits, and pension benefits.  
- The Tribunal acknowledged Applicant’s assertion of financial hardship and weighed it in considering modification of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal observed that prior summary dismissals involved contested decisions that did not represent ongoing decisions adversely affecting applicants.  
- Neither party objected to suspending the pleadings pending resolution of the related administrative matters.  
- Ruling on Motion for Summary Dismissal: The Motion for Summary Dismissal is not granted.  
- Application of Rule XXI, para. 2: The Tribunal modified application of the Rules by suspending the time limits in relation to the Application until both of the following conditions have been met:  
  - (a) any appeal pending before the Administration Committee of the Staff Retirement Plan in respect of Applicant’s pension payments has been decided; and  
  - (b) Management has rendered final decisions on any recommendations issued by the Grievance Committee in respect of Applicant’s fourteen grievances pending before it, or the Grievance Committee has denied jurisdiction in respect of those grievances.  
- Once conditions (a) and (b) are met, the Tribunal shall issue an order further regulating procedures to be followed in respect of the Application.

### Denial of provisional relief — analysis and conclusion
- Applicable statutory text cited: Article VI, Section 4, provides: “The filing of an application shall not have the effect of suspending the implementation of the decision contested.”  
- Accompanying Commentary (consolidated Commentary on the Statute) permits the Tribunal to order interim measures “if warranted by the circumstances of a particular case” but emphasizes that in the employment context a preliminary injunction is typically denied unless the aggrieved employee would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction. The Commentary notes courts are loath to conclude an injury would be “irreparable” given possible compensatory relief if the employee ultimately succeeds.  
- The Tribunal considered Applicant’s assertion of financial hardship and requested and received information about payments Applicant has received from the Fund since retirement following his work-related injury. The Tribunal observed Applicant has received substantial payments since retirement and provided scant detail supporting inability to relocate residence.  
- Applicant’s proposed standards (balance of equities; delay caused by Fund conduct) were rejected as inconsistent with the Commentary and Article VI, Section 4.  
- Conclusion: Applicant has not met the burden of showing he would suffer irreparable harm if provisional relief is not granted. Provisional relief in the form of suspending the contested decision requiring repayment of SBF benefits is not warranted.

### Formal order
- 1. The Motion for Summary Dismissal is not granted.  
- 2. Pursuant to Rule XXI, para. 2, the Tribunal modifies application of the Rules:  
  - 2.1. Time limits in relation to the Application are suspended until:  
    - (a) any appeal pending before the Administration Committee of the Staff Retirement Plan in respect of Applicant’s pension payments has been decided; and  
    - (b) Management has rendered final decisions on any recommendations issued by the Grievance Committee in respect of Applicant’s fourteen grievances pending before it, or the Grievance Committee has denied jurisdiction in respect of those grievances.  
  - 2.2. Once the conditions in paragraphs 2.1(a) and (b) have been met, the Tribunal shall issue an order further regulating procedures to be followed in respect of the Application.  
- 3. Provisional relief in the form of suspending the contested decision requiring that Applicant repay SBF benefits is not granted.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2016-1.pdf_