user115 wrote: » Equity For injunctions do people think it's safe enough to focus on Mareva, know little on Anton Pillar, then focus on Mandatory Interloc Injunctions? I had a look through exam papers til 2016/2015 and they are they only ones that seem to have come up. If I have overlooked some questions please let me know
DFMCD190384 wrote: » I wonder would Quia Timet be in the pipeline to make a reappearance?
Breacnua wrote: » define cramming, as in u have ur notes finished?
DFMCD190384 wrote: » Is 4 exams achievable? I'm freaking out and thinking of dropping one. I'm stressing that theres not even 4 weeks left.
iamanengine wrote: » Do you have most of your notes done? I'm doing 5 and just finishing up notes/starting to learn now.
jewels652 wrote: » Constitutional If I was to drop a topic which one between the Oireachtas and the courts ?
jewels652 wrote: » Thank you. Would you be kind to give a summary of the keirn’s judgement please? My notes are not up to date
supercreative wrote: » Here's the best I can do: - Kerins called before Public Accounts Committee to explain various issues around Rehab, but several members of PAC went way beyond their remit and questioned her about stuff not disclosed in her original invitation - she was profoundly affected and became unwell as a result - HC rejected her action, saying that the PAC wasn't compulsory (like the tribunal in Maguire v Ardagh was) and so they couldn't look at it - Appealed to Supreme Court, which said that committees were entitled to Art 15 protection but they could examine the PAC's conduct where it had acted unfairly but the Oireachtas hadn't remedied it - The Oireachtas, through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, had already found that the PAC's conduct was unlawful, so the court was able to point to this and hold that the PAC had treated Kerins unfairly - Effectively the courts said that the primary role here in regulating these things was for the Oireachtas, but that the courts could step in if the Oireachtas didn't deal with it - A question was raised as to whether an exception like that in Callely v Moylan could apply, but court said that while there was an argument that it could, they didn't need to decide that in this case Hope this helps!
DFMCD190384 wrote: » Yeah I think I have all finished now. I'm just afraid that I don't have enough done I suppose but worrying that I won't get all learned that I have done. It's a conundrum ������
iamanengine wrote: » I wouldn't worry at this stage to be honest, you have loads of time to get the learning done. But everyone is different! I would say maybe stick with it now and see where you are in 2 weeks. If you are really feeling the squeeze then maybe drop one. But people always say to just give them all a go anyway. The experience of sitting an exam is invaluable in itself. What subjects are you doing? The likes of Criminal and Property you can cram in no time at all!
DFMCD190384 wrote: » I'm sitting Criminal, Property, Contract and Equity.
rightytighty wrote: » They are probably the smallest four in fairness
Louis Litt wrote: » Unsure on this myself, as Mandatory Interloc Injunctions came up last time around im thinking about just going with Mareva and APO, but i'm unclear if you need to cover everything in order to be able to answer those topics fully. Any guidence from someone who's been through it would be great.
luimneachabu73 wrote: » Criminal In relation to problem questions, I'm having difficulties regarding when to use Murder / Manslaughter / Assault / Endangerment. If the facts state someone has died, I'm guessing you always discuss Murder and Manslaughter (I could be wrong here). And even if they don't die, but death was intended, murder is still discussed. Manslaughter can only be discussed if someone dies, I feel. Re Assault my take is if they don't die, this is when you talk about this? And re Endangerment, I really don't know. I know you'd use it if the facts show someone has done something idiotic such as throw an item from a bridge that strikes a vehicle, but that's about it. Could anyone shine light on when is the right time to use these? Thanks.
Jeremiah25 wrote: » Would I be correct in saying that the EU examiner changed in 2015? Did the subjects which appaear change drastically as a result? I have some stuff up as far as 2015 but questioning its usefulness now!!
iamanengine wrote: » Had a quick look at my grid and it seems generally consistent throughout...the only thing that kind of sticks out is that Sources came up every sitting from 2012 onward except it hasn't been on the last 4. Infringement seems to have come up quite a lot in the past but hasn't been on since March 16.
Jeremiah25 wrote: » Yeah I noticed that too! Hopefully I can still work off some of the pre-2015 material so! What topics are you covering if you don't mind me asking?
