Rectification cannot be used as review when no apparent error is shown and earlier findings already cover the submissions.

Rectification is confined to correcting an apparent mistake and cannot be used to reopen the merits of an earlier decision. The Tribunal noted that the applicants' submissions, including the effect of the agreement clauses and assignment deed, had already been considered, and it was not obliged to address each argument separately or disclose in advance the case law it relied on. As no apparent error was shown, the application was treated as a review in substance and rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order suffered from any apparent mistake warranting rectification, or whether the application was in substance an attempt to seek review of the earlier decision.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the applicants' contentions had already been dealt with in the earlier order and that it was not necessary to discuss every submission individually. It further noted that the effect of the agreement clauses and the assignment deed had been considered in the findings, and that the Bench was not obliged to disclose in advance the case law emerging from its own study of the matter. As no apparent error was shown, the application could not be used to reopen the merits of the earlier decision.

Conclusion: No rectifiable mistake was found and the application was, in substance, a request for review, which was not maintainable. The application was rejected.

---