UNDT/2017/020, Wilson
Whilst the prescribed form refers to “judgments” and not “orders”, the Tribunal found that this is a matter of form and not substance. The Tribunal found that the suspension of action Order No. 276 (NY/2016) was dispositive of the case at the time, and it also found that the motion under review submitted by way of a motion for correction of a judgment on Form UNDT/F.8E rev. 1 of July 2011 was receivable. The Tribunal considered whether, since the Applicant was requesting para. 13 of Order 276 be modified to include a subsequent occurrence, a revision was warranted under art. 29 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal found that a revision was not warranted as revisions are warranted upon discovery of a “decisive fact” which was “unknown to the Dispute Tribunal”. The Tribunal found that the subsequently issued UNAT judgment was not a “decisive fact” as the Order was decided on entirely difference grounds. The Tribunal rejected the motion on the grounds the Applicant failed to establish the requested correction was warranted and that the paragraph in issue was incorrect as written.
The Applicant filed a “Motion for Correction of Judgment”, requesting modification to para. 13 of the Tribunal’s Order on Suspension of Action No. 276 (NY/2016), which reads: "[t]he Applicant submits that the Secretary- General subsequently appealed Order No. 147 (NY/2016). According to the Applicant, the appeal was dismissed". The Applicant seeks that para. 13 be corrected so it reads: On 1 July 2016, the Secretary-General appealed Order No. 147 (NY/2016) [Wilson]. On 28 October, 2016, the UNAT [United Nations Appeals Tribunal] dismissed the appeal by the Secretary-General”. The Applicant argues that the correction, and in particular the words “according to the applicant”, are necessary because, although the UNAT published Wilson 2016-UNAT-709 four days after Order 276, the information that the appeal had been dismissed in that case was available through the UNAT st synopsis of the “Outcome of Judgments Rendered by UNAT During its [21 Session in New York from 17 to 28 October 2016” which the Applicant also watched on Ăĺ±±˝űµŘWebTv.
N/A Correction based on a UNAT synopsis: This Tribunal notes that the published [UNAT] synopsis stated that it is “[n]ot an official document. For public information purposes only”. As this synopsis is not an official document, the Tribunal could not and did not rely upon it as authoritative and binding. As authority, the Dispute Tribunal may only rely on the reasoned judgment of the Appeals Tribunal, which was published […] notably four days after this Tribunal’s Order”. There was therefore no error arising from any accidental slip or omission. Revision: Whilst a tribunal may be bound by precedent or reasoning in previous appellate judgments, it cannot take cognizance of decisions which follow subsequently.