[30] The very persuasive argument put forward is that to permit the respondent to force this case on for trial while he is substantially in default under the support provisions of the interim order would, to quote from the headnote [R.F.L.] in the Jacobs v. Jacobs decision, “undermine the proper enforcement of interim enforcement in matrimonial matters.” I find this reasoning compelling and one that must be given careful consideration but, like the “undue hardship” argument, I cannot come to the conclusion that non-compliance with an interim order, by itself, should be taken as sufficient justification for denying a party the right to a trial on viva voce evidence.
"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.