## ORDER No. 2026-1 (o2026-1)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [ORDER No. 2026-1 (o2026-1)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-1.pdf.json)

---

### Overview of the Application and procedural background
- Application dated and filed on July 10, 2025 by Applicant, a former contractual employee of the Fund, challenging the Fund’s “decision not to reinstate the Applicant following her coerced resignation on October 11, 2024 and to enforce separation [of Applicant from the Fund] on 27 January 2025.”
- Applicant’s principal contentions and relief sought:
  - Arbitration clause in her employment contract cannot displace the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
  - A finding that Applicant’s resignation was coerced and amounted in law to a constructive termination.
  - Compensation for:
    - lost salary, benefits, and associated entitlements;
    - moral damages for harassment, retaliation, reputational and psychological harm;
    - denial of due process.
  - A declaration that a waiver signed only by Applicant is void.
  - Removal of any defamatory, false, or retaliatory material from Applicant’s personnel file, with a written confirmation of such correction.
  - A recommendation that the Fund initiate an internal investigation and disciplinary proceedings regarding certain key actors.
  - Reimbursement of all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Applicant in pursuing the case.
- Procedural milestones:
  - Registrar requested supplementation pursuant to Rule VII(6) on July 27, 2025.
  - Applicant retained counsel (notice on July 31, 2025).
  - Supplemented Application filed August 20, 2025; further supplements on September 2, 2025.
  - Supplemented Application transmitted to the Fund on September 16, 2025 (Rule VII(7)).
  - Registrar circulated a summary within the Fund on September 22, 2025 (Rule IV(f)).
  - Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal on October 16, 2025; transmitted to Applicant on October 22, 2025.
  - Applicant filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, including a “Notice of Continuing Humanitarian Hardship and Request for Urgent Determination” under Annex 33, on November 6 and 18, 2025; supplemented on November 27, 2025 and December 8, 2025.
  - Fund filed its comments on Applicant’s requests on December 23, 2025, noting Applicant made no request for anonymity.
- Agreed procedural matters:
  - The Fund raised no objection to inclusion of Annex 33 in the official record, expedited consideration of the Motion to Dismiss, and confirmation that the request for provisional relief does not reopen the pleadings.
  - The Tribunal confirmed Annex 33 is part of the record, that provisional-relief filings do not reopen pleadings, and that no further submissions are required to rule on the Motion to Dismiss.

### Parties’ positions
- Applicant’s requests (Annex 33 submissions):
  - Take judicial notice of the humanitarian hardship described in Annex 33 and include Annex 33 in the official record.
  - Expedite consideration of the Motion to Dismiss dated 22 October 2025 or, alternatively, set an early hearing schedule.
  - Exercise or recommend interim relief under Article XIV, including provisional subsistence assistance or a direction to the Fund to explore interim humanitarian measures pending judgment.
  - Confirm that the filing supplements the factual record and does not reopen pleadings.
- Applicant’s described “continuing humanitarian and financial hardship”:
  - Unemployed since separation on January 27, 2025; sole caregiver of an eight-year-old child.
  - All credit facilities exhausted; credit score deteriorated; dependence on informal borrowing.
  - Over 1,000 employment applications submitted without success, “largely due to reputational damage compounded by the Respondent’s public pleadings.”
  - Child transferred to a lower-cost school, disrupting education and social adjustment.
  - No access to medical appointments for stress-related insomnia and anxiety.
  - Limited part-time income insufficient to meet essential expenses including university costs for her doctorate studies, utilities, and dependent child’s education; continues to rely on father for financial support.
  - Alleged withholding by the Fund of a “mandatory certificate of service or recommendation letter” impairing professional reputation.
- Applicant’s legal bases for urgent relief:
  - Article XIV of the Tribunal’s Statute and Rule XIII(4) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, plus comparative jurisprudence recognizing humanitarian hardship and dependent-child deprivation as bases for expedited or provisional measures.
- Respondent (Fund) position:
  - Opposes Applicant’s requests on grounds that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claims or grant provisional relief.
  - Argues Applicant has not connected requested relief to any specific Fund decision properly before the Tribunal as required by the Tribunal’s Statute.
  - Contends Applicant has not articulated a reasonable basis for “irreparable injury”; economic loss does not constitute irreparable harm and granting substantive provisional remedies would amount to an advance on potential monetary damages.
  - Asserts Applicant’s submissions do not identify any jurisdictional or statutory foundation for the relief requested.
  - Maintains the Tribunal is not empowered to take judicial notice of Applicant’s alleged economic hardship; the record does not support necessity of an oral hearing.
  - On judicial notice, Fund cites Black’s Law Dictionary definition and argues judicial notice is reserved for facts universally established and must be supported by credible testimony or documentation.
  - On oral hearing request, Fund contends the written record is sufficient and oral proceedings would likely address merits rather than jurisdictional issues.

### Governing law and threshold requirements for provisional relief
- Relevant statutory provision:
  - Article VI, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute: “The filing of an application shall not have the effect of suspending the implementation of the decision contested.”
- Commentary emphasis:
  - Filing an application does not stay effectiveness of the decision being challenged to avoid disruption of day-to-day administration.
  - Preliminary injunctions in employment contexts are disfavored; injury is rarely “irreparable” given possibility of compensatory relief.
  - Statute does not preclude ordering measures if warranted by circumstances of a particular case.
- Tribunal precedent and identified requirements for provisional relief (three suggested thresholds):
  1. Jurisdiction: Tribunal must not patently and evidently lack jurisdiction over the contested decision.
  2. The applicant must seek suspension of a decision that is contested before the Tribunal.
  3. Necessity: applicant must show that the requested measures are necessary because he or she would suffer “irreparable harm” in the absence of provisional relief.

### Tribunal’s analysis and findings
- Jurisdictional considerations:
  - Fund argues absence of jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione materiae and ratione temporis and asserts Tribunal lacks power to grant interim relief if it lacks jurisdiction.
  - Tribunal applies the principle that an international tribunal may not indicate provisional measures if the dispute prima facie appears outside its jurisdiction; “all that is required is that the Court does not patently and evidently lack jurisdiction.”
  - Given the Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal under Rule XII(1) asserting the Application is “clearly inadmissible,” the Tribunal will not decide on jurisdiction or admissibility prior to rendering a Judgment on admissibility.
- Requirement that the applicant seek suspension of a contested decision:
  - Applicant does not seek suspension of any decision that she contests; she identifies the challenged decision as the Fund’s decision not to reinstate her following her coerced resignation on October 11, 2024 and to enforce separation on 27 January 2025.
  - Applicant’s request for interim relief seeks “interim subsistence relief” or “provisional subsistence assistance,” which the Fund characterizes as an “advance on any potential monetary damages.”
  - International tribunals have denied similar requests as an attempt to obtain an interim judgment in favour of part of the claim rather than to indicate measures of interim protection.
  - Conclusion: the second requirement for provisional relief — seeking the suspension of a contested decision — is not met.
- Irreparable harm assessment:
  - Applicant’s alleged harms (economic and consequential):
    - loss of income as a result of separation from the Fund;
    - exhaustion of credit facilities and borrowing from family members;
    - over 1,000 unsuccessful applications to other positions;
    - transfer of her child to a lower-cost school;
    - inability to cover the costs of utilities and her doctoral studies; and
    - loss of access to certain medical appointments.
  - Tribunal notes courts are loath to find injury “irreparable” given employment relationship and possibility of compensatory relief.
  - The alleged damage is primarily economic and capable of monetary compensation; the relief sought underscores this character.
  - Documentary support is minimal: aside from a screenshot of an overdraft account, Applicant has not provided corroborating documentation for the claimed “humanitarian harm.”
  - Applicant states she “remains unemployed since 27 January 2025,” but also indicates she has obtained “limited part-time income.”
  - Fund’s pleadings are not public and therefore cannot have caused alleged reputational damage or aggravation thereof.
  - Conclusion: the alleged difficulties, though unfortunate, do not constitute “irreparable injury” under the case law; Applicant has failed to show that absence of provisional relief would cause irreparable damage.
  - Result: Applicant’s request for “interim subsistence relief” or provisional subsistence assistance is denied.
- Judicial notice of humanitarian hardship:
  - Applicant requested the Tribunal “take judicial notice of the humanitarian hardship” described in Annex 33 but did not specify legal requirements or cite relevant international decisions.
  - Tribunal references C.F. Amerasinghe: judicial notice is accepted where “no further evidence, whether to be produced by the parties or not, is required,” typically for facts of “common knowledge or public notoriety.”
  - Tribunal finds the alleged harms are neither matters of “public notoriety” nor “common or public knowledge,” are disputed by the Fund, and lack corroborating documentation.
  - Conclusion: the doctrine of judicial notice does not apply; the request that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the humanitarian hardship is denied.
- Request for oral proceedings / early hearing schedule:
  - Applicant’s request for an early hearing schedule is unclear whether it seeks oral proceedings on the Motion to Dismiss and/or the request for interim relief.
  - Under Rule XIII, oral proceedings must be shown to be “useful.”
  - The Motion to Dismiss raises limited, primarily legal issues: jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione materiae, and ratione temporis, which have been sufficiently briefed in writing.
  - Conclusion: Applicant has not shown oral proceedings would be useful; the Tribunal denies the request for oral proceedings on the Motion to Dismiss (and/or the request for interim relief) to the extent so requested.

### Order and disposition
- Applicant’s request for provisional relief is denied.
- Applicant’s request that the Tribunal “take judicial notice of [her] humanitarian hardship” is denied.
- Applicant’s request that the Tribunal “set an early hearing schedule” is denied.

*IMF Administrative Tribunal Order, Washington, D.C., March 31, 2026.*

### INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATION AND PROCEDURAL

### INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

### Overview of the Application
- In an Application dated, and filed on, July 10, 2025, Applicant, a former contractual employee of the Fund, challenged what Applicant described as the Fund’s “decision not to reinstate the Applicant following her coerced resignation on October 11, 2024 and to enforce separation [of Applicant from the Fund] on 27 January 2025.”
- Applicant contends that the arbitration clause in her employment contract cannot displace the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
- Applicant seeks relief including:
  - a finding that Applicant’s resignation was coerced and amounted in law to a constructive termination;
  - compensation for (i) lost salary, benefits, and associated entitlements; (ii) moral damages for harassment, retaliation, reputational and psychological harm; and (iii) denial of due process;
  - a declaration that a waiver signed only by Applicant is void;
  - removal of any defamatory, false, or retaliatory material from Applicant’s personnel file, with a written confirmation of such correction;
  - a recommendation that the Fund initiate an internal investigation and disciplinary proceedings regarding certain key actors; and
  - reimbursement of all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Applicant in pursuing the case.

### Procedural milestones
- Registrar requested supplementation of the Application pursuant to Rule VII(6) on July 27, 2025.
- Applicant retained counsel (notice on July 31, 2025).
- Supplemented Application filed August 20, 2025; further supplements on September 2, 2025.
- Supplemented Application transmitted to the Fund on September 16, 2025 (Rule VII(7)).
- Registrar circulated a summary within the Fund on September 22, 2025 (Rule IV(f)).
- Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal on October 16, 2025; transmitted to Applicant on October 22, 2025.
- Applicant filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, including a “Notice of Continuing Humanitarian Hardship and Request for Urgent Determination” under Annex 33, on November 6 and 18, 2025; supplemented on November 27, 2025 and December 8, 2025.
- Fund filed its comments on Applicant’s requests on December 23, 2025, noting Applicant made no request for anonymity.

### Parties’ agreed procedural matters
- The Fund raised no objection to: inclusion of Annex 33 in the official record; expedited consideration of the Motion to Dismiss; and confirmation that the request for provisional relief does not reopen the pleadings.
- The Tribunal confirmed Annex 33 is part of the record, that provisional-relief filings do not reopen pleadings, and that no further submissions are required to rule on the Motion to Dismiss.

---

### PARTIES’ POSITIONS

### A. Applicant’s position (Annex 33 submissions and relief sought)
- Applicant requests that the Tribunal:
  1. Take judicial notice of the humanitarian hardship described in Annex 33 and include Annex 33 in the official record;
  2. Expedite consideration of the Motion to Dismiss dated 22 October 2025 or, alternatively, set an early hearing schedule;
  3. Exercise or recommend interim relief under Article XIV, including provisional subsistence assistance or a direction to the Fund to explore interim humanitarian measures pending judgment; and
  4. Confirm that the filing supplements the factual record and does not reopen pleadings.
- Applicant’s described “continuing humanitarian and financial hardship”:
  - Unemployed since separation on January 27, 2025; sole caregiver of an eight-year-old child.
  - All credit facilities exhausted; credit score deteriorated; dependence on informal borrowing.
  - Over 1,000 employment applications submitted without success, “largely due to reputational damage compounded by the Respondent’s public pleadings.”
  - Child transferred to a lower-cost school, disrupting education and social adjustment.
  - No access to medical appointments for stress-related insomnia and anxiety.
  - Limited part-time income insufficient to meet essential expenses including university costs for her doctorate studies, utilities, and dependent child’s education; continues to rely on father for financial support.
  - Alleged withholding by the Fund of a “mandatory certificate of service or recommendation letter” impairing professional reputation.
- Applicant’s legal bases for urgent relief: Article XIV of the Tribunal’s Statute, Rule XIII(4) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, and comparative jurisprudence recognizing humanitarian hardship and dependent-child deprivation as bases for expedited or provisional measures.
- Applicant reserves the right to notify relevant national or humanitarian authorities if interim or humanitarian assistance remains unavailable.

### B. Respondent’s position (Fund’s Comments on Applicant’s Request for Provisional Measures)
- Fund opposes Applicant’s requests, summarizing:
  - Applicant’s selection of the Tribunal is misplaced; the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claims or grant provisional relief.
  - Applicant has not connected requested relief to any specific Fund decision properly before the Tribunal as required by the Tribunal’s Statute.
  - Applicant has not articulated a reasonable basis for “irreparable injury”; economic loss does not constitute irreparable harm and granting substantive provisional remedies would amount to an advance on potential monetary damages.
  - Applicant’s submissions do not identify any jurisdictional or statutory foundation for the relief requested.
  - Tribunal is not empowered to take judicial notice of Applicant’s alleged economic hardship; the record does not support necessity of an oral hearing.
- On judicial notice, Fund argues (citing Black’s Law Dictionary definition) that:
  - Judicial notice is reserved for facts universally established and not reasonably subject to dispute and must be supported by credible testimony or documentation.
  - Applicant’s alleged economic hardship does not meet those requirements and is irrelevant to provisional-relief questions.
  - Other international administrative tribunals have taken judicial notice mainly of previous findings in related cases.
- On oral hearing request, Fund contends written record is sufficient and oral proceedings would likely be used to address merits rather than jurisdictional issues.

---

### CONSIDERATION OF APPLICANT’S REQUESTS

### Agreed administrative requests
- Tribunal confirms:
  - Annex 33 is part of the record.
  - Applicant’s request for provisional relief does not reopen pleadings.
  - Tribunal is endeavoring to rule on the Motion to Dismiss as expeditiously as possible and requires no further submissions to rule on the Motion to Dismiss.

### Applicant’s request for provisional relief — governing law and threshold requirements
- Article VI, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute: “The filing of an application shall not have the effect of suspending the implementation of the decision contested.”
- Commentary on Article VI, Section 4 emphasizes:
  - Filing an application does not stay effectiveness of the decision being challenged; necessary for efficient operation and to avoid disruption of day-to-day administration.
  - Preliminary injunctions in employment contexts are disfavored; injury is rarely “irreparable” given possibility of compensatory relief.
  - Statute does not preclude ordering measures if warranted by circumstances of a particular case.
- Tribunal precedent: “Provisional relief is an extraordinary measure that the Tribunal will order only in limited circumstances.”
- The Tribunal identifies three suggested requirements for provisional relief:
  1. Jurisdiction: Tribunal must not patently and evidently lack jurisdiction over the contested decision.
  2. The applicant must seek suspension of a decision that is contested before the Tribunal.
  3. Necessity: applicant must show that the requested measures are necessary because he or she would suffer “irreparable harm” in the absence of provisional relief.

### Jurisdictional considerations
- Fund argues absence of jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione materiae and ratione temporis and asserts Tribunal lacks power to grant interim relief if it lacks jurisdiction.
- Tribunal observes the general principle that an international tribunal may not indicate provisional measures if the dispute prima facie appears outside its jurisdiction; “all that is required is that the Court does not patently and evidently lack jurisdiction.”
- Given the Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal under Rule XII(1) asserting the Application is “clearly inadmissible,” the Tribunal will not decide on jurisdiction or admissibility prior to rendering a Judgment on admissibility.

---

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — ORDER No. 2026-1*

### 33. In the present case, Applicant is not seeking suspension of any decision that she contests

### o2026-1 - 33. In the present case, Applicant is not seeking suspension of any decision that she contests

### Provisional relief — scope and threshold
- Applicant does not seek suspension of any contested decision in her Application; she states the challenged decision is the International Monetary Fund’s decision not to reinstate the Applicant following her coerced resignation on October 11, 2024 and to enforce separation [of Applicant from the Fund] on 27 January 2025.
- Applicant’s request for interim relief seeks “interim subsistence relief” or “provisional subsistence assistance.”
- The Fund characterizes the request as tantamount to an “advance on any potential monetary damages.”
- International tribunals have denied similar requests as they are “designed to obtain an interim judgment in favour of a part of the claim” rather than to indicate measures of interim protection; no special circumstances justify departure from that analysis in the present case.
- Conclusion: the second requirement for provisional relief — seeking the suspension of a contested decision — is not met.

### Irreparable harm requirement
- The “essential requirement for provisional relief” is a showing that “irreparable harm” will result in the absence of the relief sought.
- Applicant alleges economic and consequential harms:
  - loss of income as a result of separation from the Fund;
  - exhaustion of credit facilities and borrowing from family members;
  - over 1,000 unsuccessful applications to other positions;
  - transfer of her child to a lower-cost school;
  - inability to cover the costs of utilities and her doctoral studies; and
  - loss of access to certain medical appointments.
- The Tribunal cites the Commentary: courts are loath to find an injury “irreparable,” given the employment relationship and the possibility of compensatory relief if the employee ultimately succeeds.
- The alleged damage is primarily economic and capable of monetary compensation; the relief sought by Applicant underscores this character.
- Documentary support is minimal: aside from a screenshot of an overdraft account, Applicant has not provided corroborating documentation for the claimed “humanitarian harm.”
- Applicant states she “remains unemployed since 27 January 2025,” but also indicates she has obtained “limited part-time income.”
- The Fund’s pleadings are not public and therefore cannot have caused alleged reputational damage or aggravation thereof.
- Conclusion: the alleged difficulties, though unfortunate, do not constitute “irreparable injury” under the case law; Applicant has failed to show that absence of provisional relief would cause irreparable damage. Applicant’s request for “interim subsistence relief” or provisional subsistence assistance is denied.

### Judicial notice of humanitarian hardship
- Applicant requests that the Tribunal “take judicial notice of the humanitarian hardship” described in Annex 33 but does not specify the legal requirements for invoking judicial notice or cite relevant international decisions.
- The Tribunal references C.F. Amerasinghe: judicial notice is accepted in international procedure where “no further evidence, whether to be produced by the parties or not, is required,” typically for facts of “common knowledge or public notoriety.”
- The harms Applicant alleges are neither matters of “public notoriety” nor “common or public knowledge,” are disputed by the Fund, and lack corroborating documentation.
- Conclusion: the doctrine of judicial notice does not apply; the request that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the humanitarian hardship is denied.

### Request for an early hearing schedule / oral proceedings
- Applicant’s request for an early hearing schedule is unclear as to whether it seeks oral proceedings on the Motion to Dismiss and/or the request for interim relief.
- Under Rule XIII, oral proceedings must be shown to be “useful.”
- The Motion to Dismiss raises limited, primarily legal issues: jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione materiae, and ratione temporis, which have been sufficiently briefed in writing.
- Conclusion: Applicant has not shown oral proceedings would be useful; the Tribunal denies the request for oral proceedings on the Motion to Dismiss (and/or the request for interim relief) to the extent so requested.

### Order and disposition
- Applicant’s request for provisional relief is denied.
- Applicant’s request that the Tribunal “take judicial notice of [her] humanitarian hardship” is denied.
- Applicant’s request that the Tribunal “set an early hearing schedule” is denied.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-1.pdf_