As to objection No. 7: In Petty v. Daniel, supra, at pp. 180 and 181, Kay, J., holds that under English r. 1039 (our r. 749) the applicant is confined to the objections stated in the notice of motion. In that case other objections not set out in the notice of motion were insisted on at the hearing. But he goes on to say:— “I hold that service of the affidavits (referring to the irregular service relied upon by the applicant) was not good service at all; consequently I will not construe the case too strictly against the applicant.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.