Material factual oversight can justify rectification where it affects the basis of the tribunal's reasoning.

A material factual oversight forming part of the basis of a tribunal's reasoning can constitute a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Here, the earlier order proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the appellants had not sought technical testing of the goods, and that assumption materially affected the findings. The tribunal treated this as an apparent error, allowed rectification, recalled the earlier order, and directed a fresh hearing. Remaining grounds were not examined further once the apparent mistake was accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's earlier order contained a mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification and recall of the order for a fresh hearing.

Analysis: The rectification application succeeded on the ground that the Tribunal had overlooked a material factual position relevant to its reasoning, namely that the appellants had sought technical testing of the goods. The order had proceeded on the assumption that no such request had been made, and that assumption had materially influenced the findings. The Tribunal accepted that this constituted a mistake on the face of the record. The remaining grounds were treated as minor and were not examined further. In the interests of justice, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order and directed a fresh hearing.

Conclusion: The mistake was held to be apparent on the face of the record and rectification was allowed in favour of the appellants, with the earlier order recalled and the matter remitted for fresh hearing.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application was allowed because the earlier order was found to suffer from a material apparent error, and the appeal was reopened for reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A material factual oversight that forms part of the basis of the decision constitutes a mistake apparent on the face of the record and justifies rectification and recall of the order.

---