friedpiggy
Expert Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,663
If the BATSA case results in a judgement that is "with immediate effect" then the wine guys have won.
An immediate effect judgement against the state would result in the state appealing or objecting because they need time to issue the relevant regulations. The wine guys could then argue that the ban on alcohol was done with immediate effect and the fact that the state is demanding time to sort out the regulations, combined with the fact that the alcohol ban regs came out a few hours after ramalamadingdongs announcement, means that the state had drafted the alcohol ban regs in bad faith in an attempt to cause permanent harm to the alcohol industry.
An immediate effect judgement against the state would result in the state appealing or objecting because they need time to issue the relevant regulations. The wine guys could then argue that the ban on alcohol was done with immediate effect and the fact that the state is demanding time to sort out the regulations, combined with the fact that the alcohol ban regs came out a few hours after ramalamadingdongs announcement, means that the state had drafted the alcohol ban regs in bad faith in an attempt to cause permanent harm to the alcohol industry.


