29 As Burt CJ noted at the conclusion of his reasons, there may be some difference of approach between that taken by the Chief Justice and by the majority. Although all members of the Court likened the appeal to a review in the nature of mandamus, the majority also appear to have taken the view that the appeal might be regarded as an appeal "stricto sensu", while the Chief Justice did not. The importance of that distinction is, as we apprehend it, that in an appeal in the strict sense, where the Tribunal below has fallen into error of law or made a finding of fact which is clearly wrong, the appellate court may substitute its own judgment (see Turnbull v New South Wales Medical Board (1976) 2 NSWLR 281 at 297, per Glass JA). There is clearly, however, a tension in the reasons of the majority between the expression of that view, and the description of the appeal as being "in other words in like manner to the review of an administrative decision ... under the prerogative writ of mandamus". In that latter case, the Court will not substitute its own decision, but will identify the error, if necessary quash any decision below, and remit the matter for further consideration. It is not possible to discern from the reasons of the majority how that tension is to be resolved. In the result, their Honours took the view that the decision under appeal was not in error so that the appeal was dismissed.