DUMSURFER wrote: » Hey everyone, looking for Company notes or exam answers on 'LTDs vs DACs'. I had notes on it before but deleted them by mistake and really don't have time to go back and make new ones at this stage considering how long it's taking me to learn my notes Any help is greatly appreciated as always! I can send on notes, papers/reports, sample answers etc for most subjects if anyone is short of stuff as well!
iamanengine wrote: » Constitutional So my final topic cut looks like this Trial in Due Course, Right to life/abortion, access to courts, bodily integrity, religion, article 45 (though apparently you can just use property rights for this?) Anyone think that is ok? Don't think I've cut too much but it's hard to know
ihatethesea wrote: » I so underestimated criminal content- All the different acts are KILLING me! Is anyone else staying up all hours tonight!?
Hamerzan Sickles wrote: » Yeah, it's horrendous. You're not alone anyway. No idea how I'm going to deal with Constitutional tomorrow as well.
rightytighty wrote: » For a problem question in criminal, is it essential to state what a specific section of a statute actually says? Or would it be fine to just be like this is a breach of s5 Public Order Act 1994, that is a breach of s6 etc
nimcdona wrote: » In relation to Locus Standi in Constitutional and the case of Construction Industry Federation v Dublin City Council (2005), can anyone tell me if it was held that the unincorporated trade association did have Locus Standi to take the case on behalf of its members or was it held that the challenge should be brought by one of the members themselves? My notes and sample answer say two different things
jewels652 wrote: » My notes says they did have standing to bring an action on behalf of the interest of its members.
rightytighty wrote: » Many thanks! You don’t happen to know what they reckon for Company next week too?
TCPIP wrote: » They did not have standing as they needed to call upon a hypothetical much like in Cahill. Are you citing the HC or SC?
jewels652 wrote: » Oh really ?? It doesn’t say if it is HC or SC. Thanks for that I’ll be changing it.
scooby321 wrote: » Constitutional Does anyone have a brief summary of Zalewski v Minister for Justice?
scooby321 wrote: » Thoughts on purely focusing on this for Constitutional: 1 - Constitutional interpretation 2 - President 3 - Oireachtas 4 - Findings of Unconstitutionality 5 - SoP 6 - Fair Procedures (Natural & Constitutional Justice) 7 - Locus Standi 8 - Trial in Due Course 9 - Liberty 10 - FoE 11 - Family Anything I'm stupidly leaving out?
TCPIP wrote: » I'd say you could half that and still have enough.
Suzannec wrote: » Covering the following for Constitutional; 1. International relations 2. Proportionality 3. Separation of powers (essay only) non del, economic, social 4. Referendums 5. The president 6. The ag 7. Locus standi 8. Freedom of expression 9. Freedom of assembly 10. Art. 34. 1 11. Family 12. Constitutional Interp. 13. Fair procedure 14. Right to earn a livelihood, property rights, privacy, bodily integrity Freaking out…..surely this has to be enough to pass…am I leaving out anything important??
nmurphy1441 wrote: » What did people make of Criminal?
rightytighty wrote: » I thought it was ok, I got 5 handy enough. For Liam the drug user in Q5, was it an insanity defence? Intoxication not open as his intention not disputed?
