lawstudentirl wrote: » Yeah no worries, I’ll do my best. I sat property last time so it’s not exactly fresh in my mind. What’s the question?
ryansmith171 wrote: » Thank you ! I DM you there.
Supermax1988 wrote: » Access to the courts is 40.3.2 There’s a distinction between right to access to courts vs. right to litigate (the latter can be interfered with by limitation periods) I would say you could bring in statute of limitation cases. Touhy v Courtney & White v Dublin City Council. And then maybe courts have recognised a limited obligation on the State to provide civil legal aid, particularly in the case of vulnerable people (Stevenson v Landy)
user115 wrote: » Constitutional There was a question I read in past exams few days ago where it mentioned that this would be plaintiff was earning very little and a particular law required he have a certain amount of money for costs, what does that relate to? I imagine it's access to justice but I haven't covered it, what part of constit is it and what would I say briefly on it?
PerryMason2020 wrote: » Has anyone experience with swapping stuff with poster illy.m? Sent them on stuff a week ago and they had promised to send me stuff back and I'm still waiting. Incredibly annoying when you go out of your way for people and they don't bother their ass to do what was agreed!
nmurphy1441 wrote: » Injunctions Definite, mareva in particular due a run Charitable trusts and cy pres in some form definitely Trustees duties in some form definitely 3 certainties due a run, not on last 2/3 sittings DMC possibly as not on last sitting Undue influence as not on last sitting Misrep and specific performance as not on last sitting Just going by grid and last few sitting
mydogwentroof wrote: » EQUITY Anybody banking on certain topics? Can be for literally no reason, I'm all ears.
CMUL wrote: » Really, crap I hate being cold was it unbearable? I was thinking there would be very little heat in a big hall like that
ahona wrote: » I didnt write Burglary or Agg Burglary this was supposed to be my good answer BRB while I go and cry in one cornerhttps://media2.giphy.com/media/j0qSbeNFuzjhXKFVSP/giphy.gif?cid=790b76116e639fde0b2aea8fcf2e4d3426e0c8afd51d265d&rid=giphy.gif
iamanengine wrote: » Oireachtas - Internal rules, Locus Standi, Family, Fair Procedures, Liberty, President/AG, Interpretation These seem to be the ones most are predicting/banking on
nmurphy1441 wrote: » I put down aggravated burglary if it can be proved he entered with the knife on him!
Hamerzan Sickles wrote: » Alright, I'm going to try my best to follow your lead before I inevitably fall asleep (was up very late last night cramming for criminal) so thanks again!
bobbyness wrote: » What are people banking on coming up for contract law?
iamanengine wrote: » No worries! Yeah pretty much, they are the ones I hope to know well. Other ones I am covering but maybe won't know as well are property/livelihood, equality, referendums, freedom of expression, international relations, non-delegation
Hamerzan Sickles wrote: » Brilliant, thanks iamanengine! Is that what you are banking on yourself?
Hamerzan Sickles wrote: » Yeah, I was annoyed with myself because I wasn't entirely sure which topic of law part (a) was and my presumption of innocence answer was perfect. Was also annoyed by the Special Criminal Court coming up with the Circuit Court -- I had learned off his exam report on the SCC only. An exam of what could have beens. Brilliant, thanks iamanengine! Is that what you are banking on yourself?
EmmaO94 wrote: » I went down the transferred malice route myself... in the moment it was the only thing that jumped out at me! If I'm way off, at least that part was only half the question - felt I had a v solid answer for bail
nmurphy1441 wrote: » Could it be an example of transfered mens rea too?
Hamerzan Sickles wrote: » Okay, I'm only getting a chance to look at Constitutional now. What topics should I prioritise? Aiming for quality over quantity here.
nmurphy1441 wrote: » The distribution of insulting flyers I put down as S7 Public Order Act 1994
bobbyness wrote: » Re d) Only reason I'm thinking incitement potentially is - Applin v Race Relations Board - Where they distributed flyers and letters/emails trying to stop a family adopting a black child.
