50When new trial not to be granted

### 50 When new trial not to be granted > *\[Section 50 Amended by S.R. 1977, No. 150 \]* > > > (1)  Notwithstanding anything in this Part contained a new trial shall not be ordered – > > > > > > (a) on the ground that the trial judge misdirected himself or the jury (as the case may be), or that evidence was improperly received or rejected, or (in the case of a trial by jury) because the judge failed to direct the jury on any question or matter which he was not asked to direct them on, or because the verdict of the jury was not taken upon a question which the trial judge was not asked to leave to them, unless in the opinion of the Full Court some substantial wrong or miscarriage has been thereby occasioned; and if it appears to the Full Court that such wrong or miscarriage affects part only of any matter in controversy, or some or one only of the parties, such Court may exercise the power conferred by [section 39](#GS39@EN) [(4)](#GS39@Gs4@EN) ; > > > > > > > (b) by reason of the ruling of the trial judge that the stamp upon any document is sufficient or that the document does not require a stamp; > > > > > > > (c) on the ground of the discovery of a new fact or fresh evidence unless – > > > > > > > > > > (i) the evidence of such new fact (although not admissible as evidence on any issue previously raised) or such fresh evidence – > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (A) appears to the Full Court to be such as is to be believed, and if believed would (although not admissible as evidence on any issue previously raised) form a determining factor in the result of the cause or matter or the part thereof to which the new fact or fresh evidence relates; and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (B) could not by proper diligence have been discovered by the party applying for a new trial before the termination of the trial, or, if it was discovered by him immediately before the commencement of, or during, trial, an application to the trial judge for leave (if necessary) to raise the new fact and adduce evidence thereof, or to adduce the fresh evidence (as the case may be), or for an adjournment (if necessary) to enable the party to adduce evidence of the new fact or the fresh evidence, was refused; > > > > > > > > > > > (ii) the case is one to which [paragraph (d)](#GS50@Gs1@Hpd@EN) is applicable; or > > > > > > > > > > > (iii) the verdict, finding, judgment, order, or determination was obtained by, or is affected with, fraud; > > > > > > > (d) on the ground of surprise at the trial with respect to the evidence, unless the party applying for the new trial establishes – > > > > > > > > > > (i) the fact of surprise at the trial; > > > > > > > > > > > (ii) that he did not elect to proceed with the evidence which he had at his command at the trial; and > > > > > > > > > > > (iii) that there is relevant evidence available which, if it had been adduced at the trial, would probably have affected the result thereof. > > > (2)  Notwithstanding anything in this Part contained, no new trial shall be ordered in an action for dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage, nor shall any verdict, finding, or decree found, given, or made in any such action be set aside after decree absolute, except on an appeal from such decree absolute.