����AV

The Secretary-General sought interpretation, revision, and execution of Judgment No. 2021-UNAT-1118, on grounds that he was unable to effectuate the compensation awarded in the UNDT Judgment because Mr. Dieng refused to provide his banking details.  UNAT held that the Judgment was clear, written in plain and unambiguous language, and it left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant. Thus, there was no need for clarification. UNAT further found that the Secretary-General had failed to argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment...

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-UNAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, UNAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles’ were unknown to the UNAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. UNAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and UNAT were unaware of various UNRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. UNAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, UNAT also reasoned prior UNRWA DT judgments do not...

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. UNAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision.  UNAT dismissed the application. UNAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, UNAT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. UNAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

UNAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098. UNAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by UNAT for vacating the UNDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. UNAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

UNAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-014 by Mr Luvai. UNAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before UNDT was a Facebook “friend” of Judge Boolell, the then UNDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. UNAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. UNAT denied the application.

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-UNAT-034. UNAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered Mr Al-Mulla’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-226. UNAT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-084 filed by the estate of Mr Sanwidi. UNAT held that the estate of Mr Sandwidi did not present new evidence but merely expressed disagreement with the judgment. UNAT denied the application for revision.