The context doesn't change the principle. At all. That case was about a party who didn't exploit the fully legal options.
Every single day judgements are written where a principle is outlined and then, when the principle has been breached, the judge says so.
Does that change the principle? No. Because it is the principle.
Certain obiter dicta are taken as "persuasive" by other courts because they form such a concise statement of a legal principle that they can't really be improved on.
The two quotes I gave above are widely used in tax law in multiple countries because they elegantly state the general principle that a taxpayer has no legal obligation to help the tax man raise more money.
Every single day judgements are written where a principle is outlined and then, when the principle has been breached, the judge says so.
Does that change the principle? No. Because it is the principle.
Certain obiter dicta are taken as "persuasive" by other courts because they form such a concise statement of a legal principle that they can't really be improved on.
The two quotes I gave above are widely used in tax law in multiple countries because they elegantly state the general principle that a taxpayer has no legal obligation to help the tax man raise more money.