It may be arrogant, but it is true, and when we do appeal, we show the Juducator, and then win.Our system is a little bit different. It starts as a private hearing with just the tenants, Director, and ourselves. If either side appeals, it goes to the Small Claims Court, where it is open to the public.On occassion, the Judicator has erred, Rob (AlmostBob) politley disagreed, and when the Judicator seemed surprised, asked where that info was located in the Act..Rob stated the page and paragraph...and Judicator thanked him,looked it up in the Act he has at his bench, while Rob was in the witness chair.
Learning from mistakes will take place in either country.
I don't think it's arrogant at all. These people (magistrates and even lower court judges) are pretty clueless. What Nathan, also from NSW, surnamed Tinkler, calls a deadbeat.
I once went to a hearing where the maximum fine for a business-related civil case issue was $50,000. The judge awarded $50,000 against us. Our solicitor immediately raised the point that $50,000 was excessive because that's the maximum and we only breached the law slightly. The judge's response (yes this was a judge) was this was not excessive given the maximum fine was $2.5m. Solicitor said "er no your honour, it's $50k". The opposing counsel chimed in and said "your honour, yes it's actually $50k, not $2.5m".
The judge was all angry at getting it wrong, but she had to reduce the fine to $5000. I was thinking at the time "what a muppet this judge is" and "how silly and arbitrary is this system... if $50k is 2% of $2.5m shouldn't the new fine be reduced to $1k which is 2% of $50k?"
Muppetery system.