Even if the defendants are correct in asserting that Mr. Justice Scarth’s order did not strike down the infringing legislation on January 11, 2000, but did so one month later, the best arguable position on the part of the defendants is that the plaintiff must apply for the same declaratory judgment as had the plaintiff in Grigg v. Berg. In my opinion, it would be manifestly unjust for the plaintiff’s claim to be summarily dismissed on the basis that her rights should be other than those of the plaintiff in Grigg v. Berg, and different than others in her position following Mr. Justice Scarth’s order and following a subsequent change in legislation.
"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.