No, it shouldn't; if the rules about taximeters include "fixed to the vehicle" and it's not fixed to the vehicle, then it's not a taximeter. Maybe the rules should be updated, maybe not, but that's not for the High Court to do!
> "They are deferring to the High Court to gain a binding
> ruling based on the spirit of the law."
> "Maybe the rules should be updated, maybe not, but that's
> not for the High Court to do!"
Who, other than judges, would you rather was interpreting the law?
They aren't entitled to "interpret" the law in ways that contravene the text; a phone running the Uber app may well be a taximeter, but it's not fitted to the vehicle.
Are you simply ignoring every binding legal precedent ever?
Of course the law is open to interpretation and Judges not only disagree with each other they also overrule each other depending on the court and case in question.
so basically outdated rules shouldn't be considered only when they are inconvenient to us?
We complain so much about all these laws that "didn't keep up with the times", but the instant it's in favor of the technologists we should just be like "that's cool"?
