Research report · Reviewable analytical draft · 23 October 2026
A review of 439 numbered judgments examines who benefited at UNDT and UNAT in 2024 and 2025, the barriers staff faced, and what the evidence can—and cannot—establish about fairness.
- Download the full report (PDF)
- Download the editable report (Word)
- Inspect the complete 439-judgment ledger and official sources
The published counts are draft analytical classifications of each ruling at its procedural stage. They have not undergone independent second-reviewer validation. The methodology and coding limits are set out below.
| Year | Tribunal | Staff | Administration | Mixed | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | UNDT | 13 | 91 | 10 | 114 |
| 2024 | UNAT | 9 | 89 | 6 | 104 |
| 2025 | UNDT | 9 | 95 | 13 | 117 |
| 2025 | UNAT | 9 | 85 | 10 | 104 |
Jump to: Methodology · 2024 results · 2025 results · Fairness assessment · Ten deficiencies · Reforms · Sources
Executive summary
The evidence supports a demanding assessment: staff rarely obtain favourable operative rulings, and access to an effective remedy is constrained by procedure, representation, delay and the remedy framework. It does not establish that either tribunal is institutionally biased or that unsuccessful staff claims were legally meritorious.
- 2024: UNDT issued 114 judgments and UNAT 104. The judgment census records UNDT outcomes of 13 staff-favouring, 91 Administration-favouring and 10 mixed; UNAT outcomes were 9 staff-favouring, 89 Administration-favouring and 6 mixed.
- 2025: UNDT issued 117 judgments and UNAT 104. UNDT outcomes were 9 staff-favouring, 95 Administration-favouring and 13 mixed; UNAT outcomes were 9 staff-favouring, 85 Administration-favouring and 10 mixed.
- The official UNDT application statistics, a different denominator, show full or partial applicant success in 24 of 196 disposals in 2024 (12.2%) and 26 of 232 in 2025 (11.2%). Inadmissibility accounted for 65 (33.2%) and 78 (33.6%), respectively.
- The strongest documented deficiencies concern unequal access to counsel, procedural barriers, the ability to substitute compensation for reinstatement, rising pressure on case handling, and weaknesses in transparency. There is counter-evidence: substantial staff awards, reversals of improper jurisdictional dismissals and appellate enforcement of procedural protections.
A “staff-favouring” ruling describes that judgment’s operative result. A remand may reopen a case without awarding compensation, and dismissal of an Administration appeal may preserve a staff award. Mixed rulings are kept separate. These are analyst classifications, not official UN win-rate statistics.
What the counts mean
The census covers the unique numbered judgments in the official UNDT and UNAT registers for 2024 and 2025: 231 UNDT judgments and 208 UNAT judgments, 439 in total. It uses the judgment-number year, not the year in which the employee’s original dispute arose. The period is not a matched cohort of cases followed through both instances. Separate orders are excluded. Corrected or amended versions of one numbered judgment are counted once.
Staff includes applicants, former staff and pension claimants or beneficiaries. Administration includes the Secretary-General, Commissioner-General, participating entities and Pension Board as applicable. UNAT’s population therefore extends beyond appeals from UNDT. A UNAT outcome cannot automatically be compared with a UNDT outcome as if the populations were identical.
Staff-favouring: the operative ruling grants the staff-side challenge or rejects the Administration’s challenge, with no material opposing disposition in the operative result. Administration-favouring: the staff-side challenge is rejected or the Administration’s challenge succeeds. Mixed: partial grant and partial rejection, divided cross-appeals, or material relief retained alongside material relief removed. Neutral: a purely technical ruling without an identifiable adversarial benefit, if encountered. These labels do not certify that every remedy requested in the pleadings was awarded.
Collateral matters such as a successful anonymity motion do not convert dismissal of the substantive employment claim into a staff victory. Where anonymity itself is a principal appellate issue, its resolution does count. Merits, receivability, relief-only and post-judgment rulings remain in the overall judgment denominator; the ledger flags identified procedural stages. Multiple employees, applications or appeals within a judgment still count as one judgment. One dispute can generate several judgments.
Original judgment text was retrieved for 438 of 439 judgments, with the operative result and party posture reviewed. The published PDF for UNDT/2025/054 was unavailable; its disposition was corroborated from UNAT Order 624 (2025), para. 1, and the later appeal judgment 2026-UNAT-1640, paras. 1 and 27–28. That exception is flagged in the ledger. It is counted as a staff-favouring ruling at the 2025 stage; the 2026 reversal is outside the census. Selected reasoning was examined more closely for the thematic analysis. This is an operative-outcome census and a purposive legal analysis, not an independent re-trial of every factual record. The coding has one analytical reviewer and should be treated as a reviewable draft, with the case ledger provided for correction.
2024 outcomes
The UNDT census records 13 staff-favouring and 10 mixed judgments out of 114. UNAT records 9 staff-favouring and 6 mixed judgments out of 104: 14.4% contained a staff-favouring or mixed appellate outcome. The 89 Administration-favouring judgments represent 85.6% of that UNAT judgment population. This does not mean the Administration filed and won 89 appeals.
The official UNDT disposal picture is broader: 24 applicant successes in full or part; 77 merits dismissals; 65 inadmissibility dismissals; 28 withdrawals; and 2 closures for want of prosecution. These sum to 196 applications. Sixteen of the withdrawn cases were resolved informally; their settlement terms are not observable here. Counting all withdrawals as Administration victories would be unjustified.
UNAT’s 104 judgments disposed of 114 appeals and applications. The annual report describes 49 UNDT judgments affirmed, 12 vacated in full or part, and 2 modified, alongside 4 inadmissible appeals of orders. Affirmance and reversal indicate treatment of the lower ruling, not who won. The report’s appeal counts and judgment counts must not be forced into one denominator. A/80/136, paras. 21–22, 27, 31–36; figure III; tables 5 and 11.
| Tribunal | Judgments | Staff | Administration | Mixed | Staff or mixed % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNDT | 114 | 13 | 91 | 10 | 20.2 |
| UNAT | 104 | 9 | 89 | 6 | 14.4 |
2025 outcomes
The UNDT census records 9 staff-favouring and 13 mixed judgments out of 117. UNAT again records 9 staff-favouring judgments, with mixed judgments increasing to 10. The combined staff-or-mixed share is 18.3%, up 3.8 percentage points from 2024 before rounding. The Administration-favouring share falls from 85.6% to 81.7%. A four-judgment shift in mixed outcomes does not establish a change in judicial impartiality or staff case quality.
The official UNDT disposal categories are 26 full or partial applicant successes, 94 merits dismissals, 78 inadmissibility dismissals, 33 withdrawals and 1 closure for want of prosecution. These sum correctly to 232 applications. Twenty withdrawals followed informal resolution. The favourable share of all disposals declined by about 1.0 percentage point, despite two more favourable applications in absolute terms.
UNAT disposed of 117 appeals and applications through 104 judgments and 3 orders; 112 were disposed of by judgment. The report records 50 UNDT judgments affirmed, 17 reversed in full or part and 9 modified, with one inadmissible appeal of an order. This shows active appellate correction, but neither reversals nor modifications are intrinsically staff victories. A/81/176, paras. 4–7, 18–19 and 24–32; figure III; tables 5 and 11.
| Tribunal | Judgments | Staff | Administration | Mixed | Staff or mixed % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNDT | 117 | 9 | 95 | 13 | 18.8 |
| UNAT | 104 | 9 | 85 | 10 | 18.3 |
The official application statistics provide a second view
The table below uses disposed applications, including suspension-of-action applications, rather than numbered judgments. Do not add these counts to the judgment census. One judgment can dispose of multiple applications, while applications may also end through orders or withdrawal. This is why the official favourable-application totals differ from the favourable-judgment totals.
Combining full/partial applicant success with merits dismissals gives favourable shares of 24/(24+77) = 23.8% in 2024 and 26/(26+94) = 21.7% in 2025. These are conditional disposal ratios, not clean merits-trial win rates: the published figure includes suspension-of-action applications and does not provide the cross-tabulation needed to isolate all merits judgments. Excluding procedural losses can be informative, but also conceals a major part of the access problem.
Inadmissibility is not a finding that a grievance was unfounded. It may reflect a missed time limit, absent management evaluation, lack of an appealable decision, standing or jurisdiction. Conversely, not every procedural dismissal is unjust: jurisdiction, finality and exhaustion rules also protect orderly adjudication. A fairness inquiry must ask whether the rule was correctly applied and whether the litigant had a realistic opportunity to comply.
| Year | Total | Staff full/part | Merits dismissed | Inadmissible | Withdrawn | Other closure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 196 | 24 | 77 | 65 | 28 | 2 |
| 2025 | 232 | 26 | 94 | 78 | 33 | 1 |
Demand rose much faster than UNDT output in 2025
New UNDT cases rose from 201 to 334 (+66.2%), while disposals rose from 196 to 232 (+18.4%). The disposal-to-intake ratio fell from 97.5% to 69.5%. Reported year-end pending cases rose from 120 to 223 (+85.8%). Judgment output rose only from 114 to 117 (+2.6%). The full-time New York judge position was vacant from 1 January through 28 December 2025; half-time deployments mitigated the gap. These facts support a capacity concern, not a conclusion that judges deliberately delayed staff cases. A/81/176, paras. 4–6.
Delay affects the value of a remedy: a later compensation award may not recover a lost career opportunity, restore reputation quickly, or make reinstatement practicable. In its 2026 follow-up, the Internal Justice Council also described concerns about late receivability decisions and delayed written judgments. This is later institutional evidence, clearly distinguished from the 2024–2025 judgment census. A/81/161, paras. 11–17.
Two reconciliation limits remain. First, the reported 2025 pending total is 223, whereas 120 + 334 − 232 = 222; the cited headline figures do not explain the one-case difference. Second, the Secretary-General reports 28 cases pending over 400 days at the end of 2025, while the Council’s summary of the UNDT’s own account says none. Both claims concern the same year-end; no harmonized definition or correction was found in these sources. The report preserves the disagreement rather than presenting either figure as independently verified. A/81/161, annex I, para. 4.
What selected 2024 judgments show
Meaningful remedies were available. In Bangambila, UNDT/2024/055, para. 327, UNDT rescinded the contested decision and set three years’ net base salary as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The normal two-year compensation limit is therefore not an absolute ceiling. In Barbulescu, UNDT/2024/046, para. 36, the application succeeded and 14 weeks of special leave with full pay were ordered. Neither result guarantees implementation or permanence on a later appeal.
The appellate court sometimes corrected excessive procedural rigidity. In Khan, 2024-UNAT-1501, paras. 52–69, UNAT considered the combined exceptional circumstances surrounding email access, flooding and notification outside business hours. It reversed the filing-time dismissal and remanded for merits adjudication by another judge. This is a staff procedural victory, not a merits award, and concerns the UNDT filing period rather than a general power to excuse every management-evaluation deadline.
Substantial relief can coexist with rejected claims. In Guezel, UNDT/2024/003, para. 88, the Tribunal awarded compensation for administrative delay and moral harm but rejected a separate claim for interest on an earlier award. That makes the judgment mixed under this report’s coding. The subsequent 2025 appeal further changed the remedy; the two years are counted separately at their respective procedural stages.
A filing can fail without any merits assessment. In Abreu, UNDT/2024/002, paras. 1–3, an application filed the same day as the contested decision was rejected because required management evaluation had not been sought. This illustrates a mandatory gateway, not a judicial finding that the underlying appointment claim was weak.
Discretion receives review within legal limits. Goldenberg, 2024-UNAT-1444 upheld the rejection of the staff challenge concerning a flexible working arrangement. A court’s unwillingness to replace a lawful managerial assessment is not, by itself, favouritism. The relevant question is whether it meaningfully scrutinized compliance, reasoning, evidence and improper purpose.
What selected 2025 judgments show
UNDT also granted meaningful relief. In Ejidike, UNDT/2025/008, the challenged performance evaluation was rescinded. In AEM, UNDT/2025/021, para. 57, UNDT regularized a period of special leave with full pay, ordered related benefits and awarded ten months’ net pay for moral harm, while rejecting other claims. The latter is coded mixed because the operative result expressly divides the relief.
A favourable ruling need not produce a net financial gain. In Maruschak, UNDT/2025/092, para. 40, UNDT ordered rescission or three months’ net base salary in lieu, but also awarded the Administration USD 31,496.49 for abuse of process and authorized set-off. The mixed category preserves that distinction; this report does not estimate the net amount ultimately paid.
Jurisdictional errors were corrected. In Baraza, 2025-UNAT-1549, paras. 55–72, UNAT held that the handling and closure of a harassment or abuse-of-authority complaint could be reviewed under the relevant framework. It also criticized deciding the merits after finding no jurisdiction, and remanded to another judge. The episode evidences both a first-instance failure and an appellate safeguard.
A genuinely later decision can be reviewable. In Efrati, 2025-UNAT-1597, paras. 64–77, UNAT held that the Administration’s disputed interpretation and application of a settlement affected employment rights and was reviewable. It reversed two UNDT judgments and remanded. This does not authorize manufacturing an appeal by relabelling an old dispute: there was a concrete agreement, a contested interpretation and direct legal consequences.
Partial appellate success does not necessarily repair the career loss. In de Melo Cabral, 2025-UNAT-1614, paras. 138–140, the disciplinary sanction was reduced to separation with notice compensation and termination indemnity. Staff obtained a material benefit while separation remained. In Guezel, 2025-UNAT-1531, paras. 69–70, the Administration’s appeal partly succeeded: the material-damages award was replaced with interest, while the remainder of the judgment was affirmed, subject to the stated overall compensation ceiling.
Staff victories can be substantial. Hosali, 2025-UNAT-1523, paras. 102–103 awarded compensation based on half the D-1/D-2 salary difference for two years. Wamara Tibenderana, 2025-UNAT-1600, paras. 106–107 ordered rescission, removal from relevant registers and, if the Administration elected not to rescind, two years’ net base salary in lieu. These outcomes contradict a claim that UNAT never grants effective staff relief.
Victim access has distinct limitations. In ATR, 2025-UNAT-1601, paras. 70–87, the compensation issue had not been presented as an administrative decision for review, and the information claim was treated as moot because the information had become available through another judgment. UNAT also held that UNDT’s post-judgment amendment exceeded its correction power. The legal explanation is more specific than saying the court rejected a victim’s suffering. The policy concern is the burden on an affected staff member to identify and pursue the correct separate route.
A procedural loss may preserve a future route, or finally close the same issue. Aslam, 2025-UNAT-1598, paras. 117–129 distinguishes premature compensation challenges during medical review from claims barred by an earlier unappealed determination. It expressly notes possible challenge rights after the review produces a decision. These outcomes cannot be collapsed into “no remedy ever” or “simply file again”.
How just are UNDT and UNAT
Assessment: the system provides real judicial protection, but the evidence supports serious concerns about practical access and the completeness of redress. Neither the census nor the institutional reports justify a numerical “justice score”, a finding of systematic judicial corruption, or a conclusion that the Administration’s success rate measures bias.
UNDT supplies first-instance review, can award significant relief and can recognize liability against the Organization. Its weaknesses include erroneous admissibility decisions, inconsistent treatment of procedural boundaries in selected cases, and vulnerability to capacity constraints. UNAT provides meaningful correction, including reopening cases and increasing awards. Its function is appellate review within statutory grounds, not a complete rehearing of every grievance. That design also makes it a demanding forum for self-represented staff.
The annual tables record no UNAT oral hearings in either 2024 or 2025. Oral delivery of judgments is different from hearing oral argument or evidence. Predominantly written appeal adjudication is not inherently unfair, but it increases the importance of clear written records, adequate representation and reasoned decisions when an oral hearing is requested. The data do not show that every case required such a hearing. A/80/136, table 11; A/81/176, table 11.
Fairness has at least three perspectives: the complaining staff member, the Administration’s duty to manage lawfully, and other staff or victims affected by the conduct at issue. In a disciplinary case, an Administration victory may protect colleagues or victims; a staff victory may correct an unlawful sanction. An outcome-only measure cannot decide which result is just.
A stronger bias test would require reliable information on merits, representation, claim types, employment status, evidence, procedural posture and selection into litigation, together with consistent coding and independent legal review. Such data are not established by the public outcome census. The defensible finding is documented structural and procedural weakness, with functioning but costly corrective mechanisms.
Documented deficiencies and flaws
1. Unequal access to counsel. The Council reports that the Administration is well represented while some staff are not, and that late OSLA refusals can leave staff seeking outside counsel at their own cost or proceeding alone. This is a documented equality-of-arms concern, not proof that counsel causes a particular win-rate gap. Responsibility lies in legal-assistance design, resources and timely decisions, not solely in judges. A/80/131, paras. 16–17.
2. Procedural barriers can prevent examination of substantive grievances. About one-third of UNDT application disposals were inadmissibility dismissals in each year. Khan, Baraza and Efrati demonstrate that some first-instance barriers were applied incorrectly. The aggregate does not show how many other dismissals were erroneous. The 2026 Council report separately criticizes delayed admissibility rulings that may foreclose alternative resolution. A/81/161, paras. 16–17.
3. Winning may not restore employment. The statutory framework permits compensation in lieu for specified decisions concerning appointment, promotion or termination. The Council’s 2024 report criticizes default reliance on compensation and the risk of inadequate redress for career loss. The usual two-year net-base-salary measure is qualified by an exceptional-case power; it should not be described as an absolute cap. This is primarily a legislative/remedial design issue. A/79/121, paras. 34–37.
4. Delay and resource fragility undermine effective relief. The 2025 intake/output gap, judicial vacancy and backlog growth are measurable. Later stakeholder concerns reinforce, but do not independently quantify, their effect on individuals. The Secretary-General identifies registry constraints and complex pretrial litigation among the causes. Responsibility is shared among budgeting, appointments, registry support and case management. A/81/176, paras. 4–6.
5. Collective redress is restricted. The Council notes that class actions have not been accepted and staff representatives do not have a general representative intervention right under the cited statutes. Individual intervention and consolidation in appropriate cases do exist. Requiring similar grievances to proceed individually can raise costs and cause inconsistent timing. This is a limitation of the procedural framework, not a claim that all collective handling is prohibited. A/80/131, paras. 18–19; A/81/161, paras. 14–17 and footnote 6.
6. Transparency and accountability need strengthening. The 2024 Council report criticized inconsistent historical reporting of complaints against judges. The 2026 report records no complaints reported by either tribunal, which does not by itself establish either absence of misconduct or suppression of complaints. Accountability referrals are also not a complete measure of managerial misconduct: the annual reports record zero UNDT referrals in 2024 and one in 2025; the latter was vacated on a 2026 appeal. UNAT reported two referrals in 2024 and none in 2025. A/79/121, paras. 38–39; A/81/161, para. 26; annual reports’ accountability sections.
7. Anonymity can distribute reputational risk unevenly. In the Council’s 2026 consultations, stakeholders objected that applicants are often identifiable while officials they complain about may be anonymized. This is a reported concern and proposed reform issue, not a universal finding across the 439 judgments. Privacy, witness protection and open justice can conflict; the solution requires clear, consistently reasoned criteria. A/81/161, para. 5(c).
8. Institutional independence faces contested pressures. In its 2026 account, UNDT alleged that 2025 registry-relocation and post-abolition proposals threatened independence. The Council did not accept UNDT’s asserted right to participate in the budget process and recorded the Office of Administration of Justice’s explanation. This establishes an institutional dispute, not proven interference with adjudication. UNAT separately cautioned that stakeholder retreats could create perceptions of partiality. Both positions belong in a balanced assessment. A/81/161, annex I, paras. 2–3, and annex II, para. 6.
9. Outcome reporting is not designed to answer who benefited. Official reporting mixes judgments, cases, applications, appeals and orders. It reports affirmance or reversal without a complete beneficiary cross-tabulation, and some headline totals need reconciliation. This makes independent scrutiny unnecessarily difficult. The census addresses the beneficiary question, but cannot replace missing settlement, implementation or representation data.
10. Some judicial errors are identifiable, while their prevalence is not. Baraza illustrates a jurisdictional error and an improper alternative merits ruling; Efrati illustrates an unduly narrow view of a later administrative decision; ATR illustrates misuse of the correction power. Appellate reversal is evidence of an error in those proceedings, not a general finding that every judge or tribunal is unreliable.
Reforms supported by the evidence
The following are analytical recommendations, not statements that current law already requires them.
- Publish one linked, machine-readable outcome dataset identifying the judgment, underlying applications, appellant, beneficiary, procedural ground, relief, remand and later appeal. Report settlements separately and reconcile the backlog totals.
- Give staff timely decisions on legal assistance, monitor late refusals, and publish aggregate representation and funding data. Assess capacity against actual intake rather than assuming self-representation is an adequate substitute.
- Provide early, clearly reasoned scrutiny of jurisdiction and management-evaluation prerequisites, with accessible guidance on identifying a decision and calculating the applicable deadline. Preserve judicial discretion where the governing statute permits it; do not imply a universal power to waive mandatory limits.
- Track time to admissibility ruling, close of pleadings, judgment and execution. Fill judicial and registry vacancies promptly, and protect adjudicative capacity during restructuring.
- Review the compensation-in-lieu framework and require transparent, evidence-based consideration of reinstatement where appropriate. Publish aggregate implementation information so a paper award can be distinguished from effective redress.
- Clarify consolidation and representative participation for disputes raising common issues, while retaining individual rights and differences between employing entities.
- Publish consistent anonymity criteria and reasoned decisions, and maintain complete annual reporting on judicial complaints and accountability referrals without exposing protected personal information.
- Use targeted judicial training on jurisdiction, evidence, reasons, correction powers and victim-related claims. Preserve independence in the design and participation of stakeholder engagement.
The proper target is a system in which legally justified claims can be heard promptly and remedies work. A predetermined staff win-rate target would be a poor reform objective and could itself compromise impartial adjudication.
Limits and coding decisions that matter
The census is exhaustive for the four numbered-judgment registers, but its findings are bounded by the unit of analysis and the available public record. It does not count all affected employees, estimate damages recovered, determine settlement quality, measure compliance, or independently grade the merits. The results do not establish discrimination by nationality, gender, grade or duty station. No regression, causal model or sampling confidence interval is used; this is a defined population count with classification uncertainty.
Several decisions illustrate why the ledger is necessary:
- 2024-UNAT-1438 is Administration-favouring on the substantive post-judgment requests although a clerical correction was allowed.
- 2024-UNAT-1441 is mixed: both sides’ appeals were dismissed, preserving a divided first-instance result.
- 2024-UNAT-1467 is Administration-favouring overall: a procedural point succeeded, but the underlying application was dismissed on the merits.
- 2025-UNAT-1518 is mixed because interpretation was admitted on one issue and rejected on the others. 2025-UNAT-1582 is Administration-favouring because the Administration’s interpretation request succeeded; neither is a fresh merits trial.
- 2025-UNAT-1598 is Administration-favouring at this stage despite reversal of part of a lower ruling: the staff appeals remained dismissed, with some future challenge rights expressly left open.
The strict staff-favouring count and the broader staff-or-mixed count should both be shown. The latter is a sensitivity view, not a claim that every mixed outcome represents net financial improvement for staff. A judgment-level sensitivity check excludes the 11 UNAT post-judgment rulings identified in 2024 and 9 in 2025. The remaining counts are 2024: 93 judgments, 9 staff, 78 Administration and 6 mixed (16.1% staff or mixed); 2025: 95 judgments, 9 staff, 77 Administration and 9 mixed (18.9% staff or mixed). These are still not a merits-only population: receivability and remand judgments remain. The annual reports instead count 13 and 10 post-judgment applications, respectively, so their numbers cannot simply be subtracted from judgment totals.
Research date: 23 October 2026. Judgment coverage: numbered judgments for 2024 and 2025. The 2025 annual statistics are taken from the Secretary-General’s 2026 report. The Council’s 2024 and 2025 reports provide contemporary institutional context; its 2026 report is a labelled follow-up, not evidence that every later complaint occurred during the census period. Later appellate developments are mentioned only where expressly identified and are not added to the 2024–2025 outcome totals.
Primary sources and audit trail
Official judgment registers: UNDT 2024, UNDT 2025, UNAT 2024, UNAT 2025. The online judgment ledger supplies the published judgment URL for each case.
Annual statistics: Secretary-General, A/80/136, reporting 2024; Secretary-General, A/81/176, reporting 2025. Figure III, the caseload tables and the UNAT outcomes sections are the principal quantitative sources.
Institutional assessment: Internal Justice Council, A/79/121 (2024); Internal Justice Council, A/80/131 (2025); Internal Justice Council, A/81/161 (2026 follow-up). The report distinguishes Council assessments, stakeholder concerns, Tribunal positions and the Administration’s responses.
The online appendix provides all 439 judgment classifications, with the case, procedural-stage flag, short rationale, decision date and source link. Use your browser’s Find command to locate a judgment number or party name. The underlying research CSV additionally records the register category and evidence status. For the one unavailable original PDF, the ledger supplies an alternative official judicial source. Case examples were selected to illustrate both weaknesses and safeguards; they are not presented as a statistically representative sample of legal themes. Quantified theme frequencies would require a further, consistently coded issue taxonomy.
Submit a response or correction. Please provide the judgment number, paragraph and proposed correction.