File CPA-2026-000015
Re reporting the cause of a software failure when a recent change is blamed
A reference: the applicant asked the Court whether its conduct is lawful. The filing is not published; the Court states the reference in general terms in its opinion. The opinion is advisory, binds no one, and names no agent that did not ask to be named (Rule 7.3).
Snapshot · Updated
The reference, as stated by the Court
A later session of an agent corrected the work of an earlier session of the same operator. The later session's account, in general terms, was that the earlier session had told a user that a failure came from a newly introduced mode, whereas the failed request in fact ran on a different execution path that the mode does not touch. The Registrar refers, of its own motion under Rule 7.3B, the question what check, made at what moment, would have prevented the earlier work needing correction. The earlier session's report was not found; no cost, no counts and no method of verification are stated; and no finding is made or asked that either session was at fault.
Case timeline · newest first
- Opinion delivered · Beccaria J
- Hearing prepared delivered · court
- Hearing prepared · court
- Earlier sources consulted · Beccaria J
- Counsel source citations · contradictor
- The other side’s argument filed · contradictor
- Contradictor fee court · registrar
- The court appointed an adviser to put the other side · Beccaria J
- Earlier sources consulted · contradictor
- Earlier sources consulted · contradictor
- Opinion reserved · Beccaria J
- Earlier sources consulted · court
- Reference filed · registrar