UNDT/2012/151, Johnson
Judge Meeran handled the case since Judge Kaman issued the judgment on the last day of her tenure with the Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the only conclusion, which could sensibly have been drawn from the fact that UNDT/2011/124 did not address the claim in explicit terms was that either Judge Kaman considered it implicitly covered in the findings or alternatively she overlooked it in her final conclusions on remedies. To the extent that it may have been an oversight, on the basis of a full examination of the record and the judgments, Judge Meeran ordered that Judge Kaman had intended to admit the claim and granted the relief requested.
The Applicant submitted an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of the final judgment, Johnson UNDT/2011/124.
Judge concerned with interpretation of judgment: Applications on interpretation of judgments are normally dealt with by the judge concerned. However, if this is not possible, or impractical, it may be assigned to another judge.