Narrow recall jurisdiction bars disguised review where the proper remedy is appeal; the application was dismissed.

Recall jurisdiction is limited to patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or collusion, mistake of the court causing prejudice, or non-service of a necessary party. Grounds already considered in the earlier order did not satisfy any recognised basis for recall, and the application was in substance an impermissible review where appeal was the proper remedy. The recall application was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the recall application against the Tribunal's earlier order was maintainable on the grounds of alleged errors on the face of the record.

Analysis: Recall jurisdiction is confined to narrow situations such as patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or collusion in obtaining the order, mistake of the court prejudicing a party, or absence of service of a necessary party. The grounds raised in support of recall were already dealt with in the earlier order and did not disclose any of the recognised grounds for recall. The application sought a review of the earlier decision in the guise of recall, which is impermissible when an appeal is the appropriate remedy.

Conclusion: The recall application was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---