There was another point that was said to constitute a distinction from the cases under the earlier legislation, but it is not necessary for the purposes of this application to consider that additional point. I consider that the fact that Halliday v. Sanrud was not referred to by the division of this court which heard the appeal in Helme v. Bousquet and the fact that the distinctions between the substantive parts of the two sections may not have been referred to the court in Helme v. Bousquet constitute reasons for deciding that justice requires that this appeal be heard by a five-judge court.
"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.