UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-UNAT-1055. UNAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the UNRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout’s application was dismissed.
Article 4
Showing 1 - 2 of 2
Judgment-related matters
Revision of Judgment
Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance)
Subject matter (ratione materiae)
Non-renewal
No expectancy of renewal
Separation from service
Expiration of appointment (see also, Non-renewal)
Administrative decision
Notification
Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance)
Subject matter (ratione materiae)
UNAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the UNRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, UNAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...