On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Jonathan E. Hardis wrote: > * Who can cite case law, where a court has had to decide an actual > controversy on timekeeping? (Courts don't deal with hypothetical > controversies or arguments over trivia. De minimis non curat lex.)
Curtis v. March, cited earlier in the quotations from Halsbury's, establishing the proposition in English law that custom setting clocks in a way at variance with what the time is according to the law does not change what the time is according to the law. (If time signals, and so clocks, were to diverge from GMT with the law remaining referencing GMT, this could become relevant again; the original context was when clocks generally were set to GMT but the common law was that time was local mean time.) Miller v. Community Links Trust Ltd (UKEAT/0486/07), where a claim that arrived nine seconds late was held to be out of time. (The timekeeping was not in dispute in this case, but if GMT and the time used by time signals and computer clocks had diverged by nine seconds then a claim the computer ruled was out of time by being received at 00:00:08 could in fact have arrived at 23:59:59 GMT and so be in time according to the law.) -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
