An internal inconsistency in a tribunal's stated conclusion will not constitute jurisdictional error where the preceding reasoning makes clear that the inconsistent statement was an obvious error in expression rather than an error in the reasoning process itself, and a stray reference to an irrelevant matter will not vitiate a decision where there is no indication it intruded into the substantive reasoning.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.