A typical case of making something more complex than needed. They could have simply used a window of time specified as no less than 30 days and no more than 45 days. That would have solved the problem in an elegant and robust way.

Or simpler, just get rid of whatever moralising has lead to that law and just accept that some people want to get married now.

It need not be moralising at all. In many countries for pretty much every "life changing" contract such as marriage, buying a house, changing the will, etc. there's a cool down period that tries to prevent being rushed to do such things.

Also here in (some cantons of) Switzerland, during the month of notice you have to give to get married, the names of the couple is published so that people can protest the marriage if they know it's not a legal one, which is for sure something some people can find odious but it's not done for moralising but for practical purposes.

The reason is not a moralizing one, it came into being when the registries were less than perfect to avoid bigamy. It probably could be abandoned in the present day without any loss of functionality but it definitely was not codified into law for moralizing reasons.

Isn't bigamy typically a religious moral?

No, it is a legal one. There are pretty substantial consequences, for instance with inheritance and paternity.

Isn’t avoiding bigamy moralizing?

Not necessarily pertinent here.

Think of it this way: If bigamy was legal, you would still want to at least know if you were the only spouse or one of several. A lack of reliable and readily accessible records makes deception all too easy.

Marriage is a contract. Agreeing to a mutually exclusive arrangement only to find out it isn't is a problem, even if you don't think polygamy should be illegal.

I don't know what percentage of the time bigamists are deceiving their spouses and married to someone else "behind their back," but that's certainly a version of events that happens and it makes everyone involved pretty unhappy to find out they aren't the only one.

This is typically done by someone who travels for work. It was much easier to pull off before our current state of global communications.

The term "month" will be used in lots of legislations and other official documents. That wording above is a general definition that applies to any Acts containing the term "month" and not just for the marriage notification.

What about in the case of daylight savings? Do you need to add an extra hour?

You can set the ending time at 19:00 or 24:00 or whenever you want, which you have to do even if you base the period on months rather than days.

Daylight savings time switches happen in the middle of the night, IIRC at 2am or 3am.

> immediately before the start of the corresponding day

A month ends at the end of a day, regardless of the length of that day or any other day during the month.

The point is... you're now having to make the definition more complex.

The OP's request was to make it simpler.

With time, you often can't do that without edge cases.

Even simpler, just four weeks ignoring daylight saving time.

IANAL, but given this case is in an ACT court the ACT’s Legislation Act 2001 [0] (perhaps better named than ‘Acts Interpretation Act 1901’) is probably the more relevant piece of legislation in this case, and defines a ‘month’ like this:

  "month" means a period beginning at the start of any day of one of the calendar months and ending—

  (a) immediately before the start of the corresponding day of the next calendar month; or

  (b) if there is no such corresponding day—at the end of the next calendar month.

  Examples

  1 The period beginning at the start of 8 May 2014 and ending at midnight on 7 June 2014 is a month.

  2 The period beginning at the start of 30 January 2014 and ending at midnight on 28 February 2014 is a month. The month ends on the last day of February because in that year, February does not have a day corresponding to 29 January (because 2014 is not a leap year). If the period began at the start of 30 January 2016 (ie a leap year), the month would end at midnight on 29 February 2016.

  Note: An example is part of the Act, is not exhaustive and may extend, but does not limit, the meaning of the provision in which it appears (see Legislation Act, s 126 and s 132).

Example 2 is extremely relevant.

[0] http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/conso...

I see no mention of timezones. I can see complications arising from that, given Australia spans a few timezones.

Time is complicated when it comes to implementing strict rules. There will always be situations that can be interpreted in more than one way. This is why laws need not only the letter (what) but also the spirit (the why). When the letter of the law proves ambiguous, the spirit can be used to come up with a resolution.

What I’ve quoted is just the definition of a ‘month’ in legislation in the ACT. Time zones are dealt with in other parts of the Act and other legislation.

But yes, time is complicated, especially when multiple jurisdictions are involved.

I really wish there was an ACT Acts Interpretation Act.

Fascinating that they don't use the same "immediately before" language under (ii) - that seems to provide clarity that it's at the end of the day not the start of the day but no such clarify exists for (ii) though could probably be assumed.

(ii) explicitly states at the end of the month, which unambiguously specifies that the period ends when the month does. (i) uses “immediately before” language because it is referencing the numerically corresponding day of the next calendar month after the start day. In both cases they seem to be taking the simplest unambiguous description.

I thought it was a month and a day notice you had to give.

tell me there's an "acts interpretation act" interpretation. or even "acts interpretation act" interpretation act.