Originally Posted by
Globaliser
The consequence of such pronouncements would be that it would become nigh on politically impossible for the executive not to propose, and the legislature not to adopt, amendments to the legislation to make it make sense. If there are other considerations which the court was not able to take into account (as a court can only rule on the basis of what the parties before it place before it), they can be taken into account at that stage. In other words, there would be a rapid legislative fix - provided that this is still the proper course of action when everything is taken into account, not just what was available to the court.
Thinking this through.
If the court did this though unless the fix to the regulation itself became retrospective surely the effect would be essentially to void any claims made (relying upon the new clarified wording) which would deny many claimants reasonable compensation that the regulation was meant to ensure.
The "proper" fix thus surely perversely becomes less satisfactory to passengers who have been historically disadvantaged than the "pragmatic" fix the court adopted in it's ruling?