Judgment No. 4783
Decision
The application for review is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant filed an application for the review of Judgment 4424.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4424
Keywords
application for review; complaint dismissed
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The principles applicable in an application for review are well settled (see, for example, Judgment 4736, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein):
“[T]he only admissible grounds for review are failure to take account of material facts, a material error involving no exercise of judgement, an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea, on the other hand, afford no grounds for review.”
While he does not do so in his complaint brief, the complainant does seek to establish in his rejoinder how two of these grounds have been engaged. The first is that the Tribunal allegedly committed a material error of fact. The factual error was said to be that the Tribunal did not consider that the complainant had suffered any financial consequence for the decision placing him on unauthorised absence […], even though this was not the case. The complaint acknowledges this was not stated explicitly. Even if this analysis were correct (which it is not) it does not constitute a failure to take into account a material fact. The second ground is that the Tribunal allegedly failed to rule on a claim. Relevantly that was a claim for material damages. Having regard to the relief sought in the complaint leading to the judgment being reviewed, no such claim was made.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4736
Keywords
application for review; admissible grounds for review; material error; omission to rule on a claim
|
