[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, M. Warner Losh wrote:


> In message: <722F0D89-CBFA-423A-9C9E-6D919DED9C4D at batten.eu.org>

>             Ian Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> writes:

> : >

> : > I'd wager that UTC, whatever its realization, would likely trump any

> : > locally written laws.

> : 

> : It'll be interesting in the UK

> : 

> : * There's no doubt that UK legal time is GMT, Interpretation Act 1978,

> : * S.9

> : 

> : *  There's no doubt that whatever GMT is, it's solar, and there's no

> : *  doubt that whatever UTC is, it isn't solar and would be even less

> : *  solar without leap seconds,

> : 

> : * There's no doubt that proposed legislation to change UK legal time to

> : * UTC failed to be passed in 1997, and an extensive history of the issue

> : * got read into Hansard.

> : 

> : You'd have a hell of a job showing UK time was UTC in the face of

> : that.

> 

> Do you have references to case law that confirms this interpretation?


I see no reason the principle from Curtis v. March (1858) 3 H & N 866 that 
"Neither can the time be altered by a railway company whose railway passes 
through the place, nor by any person who regulates the clock in the 
town-hall." would not apply today to say that the time is as specified by 
law and not by those who set time signals, although that part of the 
judgment may not be binding precedent.  I have previously here noted 
Miller v. Community Links Trust Ltd (UKEAT/0486/07) as evidence that a 
nine-second time difference (between legal time and time signals) would be 
sufficient to be litigated.

http://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/v36/docs/parrish36.1.pdf

(previously discussed on this list in December 2006) makes interesting 
reading for those concerned with how courts might rule if there were 
differences between de facto and de jure time; it's certainly not a 
foregone conclusion either way.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm at polyomino.org.uk