vs. argument alternativ/secundar

Ex:
The Claimant’s primary case was that s.1(3)(b) of the FAA was incompatible with her rights under Articles 14 and 8 of the ECHR. She argued that it unjustifiably discriminated against persons who had been cohabiting as husband and wife for less than two years, by excluding them (but not those who had been cohabiting for two years or more) from the classes of family members entitled to claim damages for loss of dependency under the FAA.

The Claimant’s alternative case was that s.1(3)(b) of the FAA constituted an unjustifiable interference with her right to respect for family life contrary to Article 8 of the ECHR.

Both the Claimant’s primary and alternative case were dismissed at first instance by Eady J in the High Court ([2012] EWHC 2000 (QB)). The Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

http://www.12kbw.co.uk/cases/commentary/id/163/

Ex:
Argumentul principal invocat de catre recurenta SC S.R. SA în sustinerea cererii sale de ridicare a sechestrului asigurator
http://www.spete.info/jurisprudenta-obiect/cerere-de-ridicar...