Motions for new trial.
From and after the commencement of this Act every motion for a new trial, or to set aside a verdict, finding, or judgment, in any cause or matter, in the High Court in which there has been a trial thereof, or of any issue therein with a jury shall be heard and determined by the Court of Appeal and not by a divisional court of the High Court.”220.But Route A remained the sole means of challenge where a rehearing was sought of a cause tried by judge alone, where no error by the judge was alleged. See M A Smith v A Smith (I M Nowers, Intervener) [1897] P 293, CA where it was held that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear a motion by the petitioner for the rehearing of a cause tried by judge alone.21.Route A was re-expressed in r. 46 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules, 1924 which provided that:“An application for the re-hearing of a cause heard by a Judge alone where no error of the Court at the hearing is alleged shall be made to a Divisional Court of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division”322.Almost verbatim the rule was successively recast in r. 36 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules, 1937, r. 36 Matrimonial Causes Rules 1957, r. 54 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules 1973 and r. 54 Matrimonial Causes Rules 1977.23.That latter rule provided:“(1) An application for re-hearing of a cause tried by a judge alone (whether in the High Court or a divorce county court), where no error of the court at the hearing is alleged, shall be made to a judge.(2) Unless otherwise directed, the application shall be made to the judge by whom the cause was tried and shall be heard in open court.(3) The application shall be made:(a) in the High Court, by a notice to attend before the judge on a day specified in the notice, and(b) in the county court, on notice in accordance with C.C.R. Order 13, rule 1 (which deals with application in the course of proceedings),and the notice shall state the grounds of the application.”24.Sec 17 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was then passed. This stated:“