2013-UNAT-352, Cohen
UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-131 by Ms Cohen. UNAT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute or Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about UNAT reducing the compensation awarded. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.
In judgment No. 2011-UNAT-131, UNAT reduced the amount of compensation for pecuniary damages for loss of earnings and amended the amount of interest awarded.
No party may seek revision of a judgment merely because that party is dissatisfied with the pronouncement of the Tribunal and wants to have a second round of litigation.