2016-UNAT-680, James
UNAT considered the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal’s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
The Applicant contested the decision to reject his Appendix D claim and the United Nations Mission in Liberia’s alleged negligence in referring him to a sub-standard medical facility for cataract surgery, which caused injury to his eyes. UNDT found the Applicant’s negligence claim not receivable as he had failed to request management evaluation of this claim. UNAT also found the Applicant’s claim for separation on health grounds as not receivable for the same reason of failure to request management evaluation. UNDT dismissed the Applicant’s application.
Subject to Article 2 of the UNAT statute, either party may apply to UNAT for a revision of a judgment on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to the UNAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The application must be made within 30 calendar days of the discovery of the fact and within one year of the date of the judgment.