Re: Regulation 206 [Was: Rod Speed]

["Darkside" <darkside144@yahoo.com>]

WhaleOilBeefHooked wrote in message <7sf03r$9q6$1@news1.mpx.com.au>...

>Would not make it invalid, it would require a ruling from a court though
And
>NOT a court of summary jurisdiction) to establish this definition though.
>Since any action arising from this section would be in a court of summary
>jurisdiction (Local Court in NSW, not sure what the Victorian equivalent
>is - Petty Sessions??????) that particular courts definition would not be
>binding on other courts. It would require an appeal to the District Court
>for any definition to be binding on lower courts.

Your statement is erroneous.  An appeal to the District Court would make
nothing binding on lower courts.  Both are inferior courts of records, refer
to Valentine v Eid.  Stare decisis does not exist between a District Court
and a Local Court.  Brief ratio is workload of District Court requires many
ex tempore decisions, not conducive to rationalised and researched
decisions.

Darkside.