FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

Fe1user5555

bluerthanu wrote: »

The shortest answer to this I think is that you can do both (1) just substantial risk of danger from Szabo, focussing on evidence etc (followed in Murphy v. Irish Water, albeit O’Regan J still referenced Campus Oil), and (2) Campus Oil that notes there is likely a higher standard arising from Szabo (Gurragh v. Bord na gCon and National Irish Bank v. RTE literally just applied Campus Oil).

You can do both approaches by making a good case for doing so based solely on the contradictory judgment of Geoghegan J in Szabo: (1) he referenced Spry’s Equity that there is no different in the tests for quia timet and a normal interlocutory, (2) he nevertheless found it distasteful to apply the terminology of the ‘balance of convenience’ where it affected children (Kirwan’s injunctions textbook says this could principally be the reason why Geoghegan J didn’t apply Campus Oil), and (3) Geoghegan J went on to apply Campus Oil just in case! Given it’s a problem question you wouldn’t get much out of just applying Szabo too it has to be remembered really.

Notwithstanding all the above too, it’s worth pointing out there’s been no Supreme Court judgment here (Szabo was the High Court), so realistically it would be incumbent (and very responsable) on a careful solicitor to advise their client that a court could adopt either just Szabo or Campus Oil. Generally, however, the QT problem questions make reference to some poor evidence for the fear (as another poster pointed out), so I think you’d have to make reference to Geoghegan J’s comments about the witnesses and the higher evidentiary standard required.

This is what I’ll be doing if it comes up anyway, hope it works!

Hi sorry I don’t have the part about witnesses and higher evidentiary standard in my notes could you explain it please if that’s not too annoying?

FE1_2020_

bluerthanu wrote: »

The shortest answer to this I think is that you can do both (1) just substantial risk of danger from Szabo, focussing on evidence etc (followed in Murphy v. Irish Water, albeit O’Regan J still referenced Campus Oil), and (2) Campus Oil that notes there is likely a higher standard arising from Szabo (Gurragh v. Bord na gCon and National Irish Bank v. RTE literally just applied Campus Oil).

You can do both approaches by making a good case for doing so based solely on the contradictory judgment of Geoghegan J in Szabo: (1) he referenced Spry’s Equity that there is no different in the tests for quia timet and a normal interlocutory, (2) he nevertheless found it distasteful to apply the terminology of the ‘balance of convenience’ where it affected children (Kirwan’s injunctions textbook says this could principally be the reason why Geoghegan J didn’t apply Campus Oil), and (3) Geoghegan J went on to apply Campus Oil just in case! Given it’s a problem question you wouldn’t get much out of just applying Szabo too it has to be remembered really.

Notwithstanding all the above too, it’s worth pointing out there’s been no Supreme Court judgment here (Szabo was the High Court), so realistically it would be incumbent (and very responsable) on a careful solicitor to advise their client that a court could adopt either just Szabo or Campus Oil. Generally, however, the QT problem questions make reference to some poor evidence for the fear (as another poster pointed out), so I think you’d have to make reference to Geoghegan J’s comments about the witnesses and the higher evidentiary standard required.

This is what I’ll be doing if it comes up anyway, hope it works!

Thanks a million for clarifying that and breaking down the competing approaches which can be applied. I'm going go heavy on the evidentiary burden and Geoghegan's commentary and add the campus oil and say it fails the the first limb anyway in regards to there being a serious issue to be tried. Hopefully its a QT question on Fungi the dolphin

FE1_2020_

Fedone wrote: »

From my understanding the difference in the RTE case was that there was no dispute as to whether the conduct in question was actually causing damage so campus oil was used there instead of szabo.

Thanks for elaborating on why that case took that approach.

church street 94

Any merit in trying to add any of the following - satisfaction, specific performance, rectification/unil mistakes?
Iv covered(struggling to retain) injunctions, charities/cy-pres, UI, DMC, tracing, trustees, estoppel, 3Cs

bluerthanu

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

Hi sorry I don’t have the part about witnesses and higher evidentiary standard in my notes could you explain it please if that’s not too annoying?

I’m kinda just deducing that there is one from two main sources (but just my own thinking). First is that substantial risk of danger is, I would think, by its nature going to require a higher evidentiary standard to convince a court (old case of Boswells said it should be a strong probability amounting to a moral certainty). Second is that Geoghegan said the court is ‘entitled to have some regard to the respective qualifications, expertise and background of the respective expert witnesses relied on’, and then went on to seem unimpressed with the witnesses for the claimant (here’s the judgment if it helps: https://www.ucc.ie/academic/law/irlii/articles/Szabo.htm).

Fe1user5555

bluerthanu wrote: »

I’m kinda just deducing that there is one from two main sources (but just my own thinking). First is that substantial risk of danger is, I would think, by its nature going to require a higher evidentiary standard to convince a court (old case of Boswells said it should be a strong probability amounting to a moral certainty). Second is that Geoghegan said the court is ‘entitled to have some regard to the respective qualifications, expertise and background of the respective expert witnesses relied on’, and then went on to seem unimpressed with the witnesses for the claimant (here’s the judgment if it helps: https://www.ucc.ie/academic/law/irlii/articles/Szabo.htm).

Thank you so much that is so helpful

JayFE1

bluerthanu wrote: »

The shortest answer to this I think is that you can do both (1) just substantial risk of danger from Szabo, focussing on evidence etc (followed in Murphy v. Irish Water, albeit O’Regan J still referenced Campus Oil), and (2) Campus Oil that notes there is likely a higher standard arising from Szabo (Gurragh v. Bord na gCon and National Irish Bank v. RTE literally just applied Campus Oil).

You can do both approaches by making a good case for doing so based solely on the contradictory judgment of Geoghegan J in Szabo: (1) he referenced Spry’s Equity that there is no different in the tests for quia timet and a normal interlocutory, (2) he nevertheless found it distasteful to apply the terminology of the ‘balance of convenience’ where it affected children (Kirwan’s injunctions textbook says this could principally be the reason why Geoghegan J didn’t apply Campus Oil), and (3) Geoghegan J went on to apply Campus Oil just in case! Given it’s a problem question you wouldn’t get much out of just applying Szabo too it has to be remembered really.

Notwithstanding all the above too, it’s worth pointing out there’s been no Supreme Court judgment here (Szabo was the High Court), so realistically it would be incumbent (and very responsable) on a careful solicitor to advise their client that a court could adopt either just Szabo or Campus Oil. Generally, however, the QT problem questions make reference to some poor evidence for the fear (as another poster pointed out), so I think you’d have to make reference to Geoghegan J’s comments about the witnesses and the higher evidentiary standard required.

This is what I’ll be doing if it comes up anyway, hope it works!

Why is it a contradictory judgment? He and many Justices and Lords both here and in the UK have consistently stated there is no real difference between QT and “normal” interlocutory injunctions except of course the threatened breach which is where it gets its name from - “Because he feared”! Secondly, he found it distasteful in that case because it was argued that the health of the children was at stake. The reason why injunctions are difficult to ascertain is because there is a jurisprudential attitude that if damages can fix it then damages it is. Obviously, big difference between an apprehended breach to one’s health than say ones good name / commercial interests. I believe this was the correct stance to take.

I think people can get bogged down with interim / interlocutory / perpetual and prohibitory / mandatory, etc. Break it down word by word and it starts making a lot more sense. Equity requires a lot of conceptual understanding and a genuine understanding rather than just spitting back a legislative provision and saying that covers him or he breached that, etc.

Case in point with Charitable Trusts / Cy Pres and here with injunctions - you’re saying you’re going to give both Campus Oil and Szabo drawing this distinction between the two but let me ask you this if you satisfied Szabo and showed the threatened breach to the Courts satisfaction would you get the injunction? Yes. If damages were an adequate remedy, would you get the injunction? I’d bet not. I’ve said it before and I’ve say it again but when it comes to injunctions Campus Oil is an equity students bread and butter. Szabo is the BLT.

shaunadennyham

JayFE1 wrote: »

Why is it a contradictory judgment? He and many Justices and Lords both here and in the UK have consistently stated there is no real difference between QT and “normal” interlocutory injunctions except of course the threatened breach which is where it gets its name from - “Because he feared”! Secondly, he found it distasteful in that case because it was argued that the health of the children was at stake. The reason why injunctions are difficult to ascertain is because there is a jurisprudential attitude that if damages can fix it then damages it is. Obviously, big difference between an apprehended breach to one’s health than say ones good name / commercial interests. I believe this was the correct stance to take.

I think people can get bogged down with interim / interlocutory / perpetual and prohibitory / mandatory, etc. Break it down word by word and it starts making a lot more sense. Equity requires a lot of conceptual understanding and a genuine understanding rather than just spitting back a legislative provision and saying that covers him or he breached that, etc.

Case in point with Charitable Trusts / Cy Pres and here with injunctions - you’re saying you’re going to give both Campus Oil and Szabo drawing this distinction between the two but let me ask you this if you satisfied Szabo and showed the threatened breach to the Courts satisfaction would you get the injunction? Yes. If damages were an adequate remedy, would you get the injunction? I’d bet not. I’ve said it before and I’ve say it again but when it comes to injunctions Campus Oil is an equity students bread and butter. Szabo is the BLT.

Well tbf it is all contradictory as didn’t the SC say in the Tara Mines case that there is only one standard of proof in civil cases ie balance of probabilities and anything else is just causing confusion - don’t think the courts have taken much heed of this though

JayFE1

Lawlaw12 wrote: »

I'm also unsure what the Gemma O'D case falls under??
I think it's quite broad as she made a load of arguments, I'll probably leave it out

It’s got to be Article 15.2 / NDD. Reading between the lines, it seemed she was arguing the Min. For Health was law making. I heard recently that NPHET are going to be subject to the same claims too from another P.

JayFE1

shaunadennyham wrote: »

Well tbf it is all contradictory as didn’t the SC say in the Tara Mines case that there is only one standard of proof in civil cases ie balance of probabilities and anything else is just causing confusion - don’t think the courts have taken much heed of this though

I don’t think it is Shauna - I mean the applicant will be required to prove say the risk of dissipation of assets in a Mareva on the balance of probabilities like the DPP would prove elements of the Actus / Men’s beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it was Fennelly J who stated there wasn’t much difference between for example a serious issue to be tried / a fair question in practical terms however students would definitely overthink that one. Are you doing Equity tomorrow?

shaunadennyham

JayFE1 wrote: »

I don’t think it is Shauna - I mean the applicant will be required to prove say the risk of dissipation of assets in a Mareva on the balance of probabilities like the DPP would prove elements of the Actus / Men’s beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it was Fennelly J who stated there wasn’t much difference between for example a serious issue to be tried / a fair question in practical terms however students would definitely overthink that one. Are you doing Equity tomorrow?

Haha no the judge literally said ‘there is one standard of proof for civil cases - balance of prob and the multiplicity of phrases used has caused confusion’. Not trying to argue - everyone is very tired at this stage. Doing equity constitutional contract and Eu this week and what about yourself

Fe1forthefun

Constitutional predictions please? I am completely unprepared for this exam it seems.

Katiemckay60

JayFE1 wrote: »

It’s got to be Article 15.2 / NDD. Reading between the lines, it seemed she was arguing the Min. For Health was law making. I heard recently that NPHET are going to be subject to the same claims too from another P.

Could use it for locus standi too- said she had standing to challenge act as it affected all citizens including applicant- relied on Cahill and Mohan
Mentions administration in public too- that the Covid restrictions For court hearings is justified

JayFE1

shaunadennyham wrote: »

Haha no the judge literally said ‘there is one standard of proof for civil cases - balance of prob and the multiplicity of phrases used has caused confusion’. Not trying to argue - everyone is very tired at this stage. Doing equity constitutional contract and Eu this week and what about yourself

Nah, not arguing, would’ve debated it further but you haven’t time for semantics! 😂 I swear that’s brutal - 4 in 4 days. Pray for undue influence on the two. Just Constitutional but it’s my last so there’s a little added spice. Best of luck, you’ll smash through them.

JayFE1

Katiemckay60 wrote: »

Could use it for locus standi too- said she had standing to challenge act as it affected all citizens including applicant- relied on Cahill and Mohan
Mentions administration in public too- that the Covid restrictions For court hearings is justified

Absolutely.

Art 40.3 rights to bodily integrity (mental health in the lockdown) and right to travel would be another two potential breaches.

Katiemckay60

Constitutional- thinking of leaving out remedies/deferred declarations , hardly come up again?

Lawlaw12

Katiemckay60 wrote: »

Constitutional- thinking of leaving out remedies/deferred declarations , hardly come up again?

Did deferred declarations come up on the last paper?? I didn't notice it in any of the questions, can you remember what Q it is

The examiner has apparently flagged remedies as an important topic in the courts at the moment, so I'd look over it if you have time

Lawlaw12

Katiemckay60 wrote: »

Constitutional- thinking of leaving out remedies/deferred declarations , hardly come up again?

Also, Have you got many cases for deferred declarations?

I only have 3.... wondering if I'm missing some

Katiemckay60

Lawlaw12 wrote: »

Did deferred declarations come up on the last paper?? I didn't notice it in any of the questions, can you remember what Q it is

The examiner has apparently flagged remedies as an important topic in the courts at the moment, so I'd look over it if you have time

Sorry deferred declarations came up sitting before in october. Remedies last year
What do you have on remedies? I just have cases on the effect of unconstitutionality - Like Frawley, arbour hill ,Murphy v AG , cases after danache.

Katiemckay60

Lawlaw12 wrote: »

Also, Have you got many cases for deferred declarations?

I only have 3.... wondering if I'm missing some

I have persona digital telephony, NVH v min justice equality , PC v min social protection , AB v clinical director lomans hospital, Agha v min social protection

They all say same thing more or less To me I don’t see how you’d write a full essay on it.

123456789j

Hi guys, conscious this probably isint the best time to be spamming this thread with people still with exams this week but I was wondering if anyone should offer opinions/info on a couple of queries I have:

1. Will the law society be offering refunds? Due to the manner of the exams being delayed and rescheduled, I was unable to fully prepare for the 4 I had paid for so took the conscious decision to only sit two. Will I be able to seek a Refund for the exams I did not sit.

2. Due to all that has gone on with covid this year, exams being cancelled, rescheduled, delayed etc... is there any possibility that the law society will organise extra sittings in 2021 to accommodate students who were unable to sit Exams at certain periods this year? I am due to go to blackhall in September and at present, will be under pressure to complete these come March.

Thanks.

Lawlaw12

Katiemckay60 wrote: »

Sorry deferred declarations came up sitting before in october. Remedies last year
What do you have on remedies? I just have cases on the effect of unconstitutionality - Like Frawley, arbour hill ,Murphy v AG , cases after danache.

Yea same for effect of uncons., then also have deferred declarations & damages as a remedy under the 'remedies' heading too

Then some cases on lacunae (where striking down only removes the benefit), but I'm skipping that

shaunadennyham

123456789j wrote: »

Hi guys, conscious this probably isint the best time to be spamming this thread with people still with exams this week but I was wondering if anyone should offer opinions/info on a couple of queries I have:

1. Will the law society be offering refunds? Due to the manner of the exams being delayed and rescheduled, I was unable to fully prepare for the 4 I had paid for so took the conscious decision to only sit two. Will I be able to seek a Refund for the exams I did not sit.

2. Due to all that has gone on with covid this year, exams being cancelled, rescheduled, delayed etc... is there any possibility that the law society will organise extra sittings in 2021 to accommodate students who were unable to sit Exams at certain periods this year? I am due to go to blackhall in September and at present, will be under pressure to complete these come March.

Thanks.

I imagine you will have no issue getting a refund for the ones you didn’t sit but if I were you I would email Paula sheedy and make sure. In terms of extra sittings I imagine they haven’t made up their mind yet but again you could email and express an interest - more people who email the more likely they are to put one on

Vegetarian2017

Urgent

I cant log on to my exam till 1030am is this going to cause an isse for me, I am in a panic!!!

Any help appreciated does it close at a certain time??

shaunadennyham

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Urgent

I cant log on to my exam till 1030am is this going to cause an isse for me, I am in a panic!!!

Any help appreciated does it close at a certain time??

Email the law society but from what previous posters have said they still had the full 3.5 hours when they logged on late

Fe1user5555

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Urgent

I cant log on to my exam till 1030am is this going to cause an isse for me, I am in a panic!!!

Any help appreciated does it close at a certain time??

I logged on at 10.30am for property and there was no issue but I rang law society first to tell them I would be logging on late

ruby1998

Best of luck everyone!!

Iso_123

Anyone have any predictions for constitutional tomorrow?

Katiemckay60

Iso_123 wrote: »

Anyone have any predictions for constitutional tomorrow?

I was thinking Referendum , Freedom of expression , constitutional interpretation/president/AG
Maybe international relations
But it’s so unpredictable I’m just hoping I’m right in what’s due up

Iso_123

Katiemckay60 wrote: »

I was thinking Referendum , Freedom of expression , constitutional interpretation/president/AG
Maybe international relations
But it’s so unpredictable I’m just hoping I’m right in what’s due up

I would love if we got an essay on the president, then questions on referendums and freedom of expression! Expression defo due a run because it wasn't in march paper so fingers crossed for a nice question on that