The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, nor did she present any new or important evidence that was not available at the time of judgment. The court held that all evidence and the counterclaim were considered in the original judgment. The applicant's mistaken belief regarding the status of the proceedings and her counsel's inadvertent error did not constitute sufficient grounds for review. The court emphasized that review is not a substitute for an appeal and that the proper recourse for the dissatisfied party was to file an appeal. The application for review was also found to be filed with inordinate and inexcusable delay. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.