Making law means imagining what the future consequences of what we do today will be and, in accordance with that insight, laying down a coherent set of norms capable of dealing appropriately with our actions when they occur. A core reason for having a legal system is the fact that it provides predictable outcomes to disputes, and for that reason the law should not change too easily. However, since law must reflect the contemporary values of the society in which it operates or becomes moribund, it must also be able to generate novel solutions to remain effective. That requires a careful balancing act between maintaining certainty and seeking novel solutions for an evolving society. This tension between maintaining certainty and creating new knowledge (in the sense of knowledge that the courts take up to change the law) needs several ingredients: original research, a real dispute that needs to be resolved, enterprising counsel to present the research to the court, and a judge who is receptive to the argument made in the research. This contribution seeks to illustrate the process through one example of the intricate dance between certainty, originality, and justice.