The defendant says that no application was made immediately upon being advised of the making of the order because it was anticipated that an application for a summary determination of the litigation was to be attempted in the immediate future. The defendant contends that the interim order can be varied on a trial of the action. As authority for the procedure adopted, the defendant relies on comments made by Legg J.A. in Fish v. Fish:[6] ... although this order is determinative of interim maintenance it will be open to the trial judge to confirm or vary or review that order of interim maintenance.
"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.