Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…4445474950…334

Comments

  • #1382
    ryansmith171
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24 ✭ryansmith171


    Thank you ! I DM you there.


  • #1383
    user115
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 241 ✭✭user115


    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

    Would agree with these but I think there were a good few decisions relating to interloc injunction last year so I'd say that could come up as well. But ya mareva hasn't been up in while so equally could be that


  • #1384
    PerryMason2020
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭PerryMason2020


    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!


  • #1385
    mydogwentroof
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 94 ✭✭mydogwentroof


    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!


    She is an incredulous bean counter


  • #1386
    Supermax1988
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 189 ✭✭Supermax1988


    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?

    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)


  • Advertisement
  • #1387
    iamanengine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    Constitutional is slowly destroying my will to live...


  • #1388
    user115
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 241 ✭✭user115


    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)

    Thanks a million


  • #1389
    lawstudentirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭lawstudentirl


    ryansmith171 wrote: »
    Thank you ! I DM you there.
    I didn’t get any DM!


  • #1390
    bobbyness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84 ✭✭bobbyness


    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?

    Cheeky as you're helping so many people. Any chance you have a grid on contract and tort law? :)


  • #1391
    LawStudent96
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21 ✭LawStudent96


    EU

    Would any kind soul have a sample answer on distinguishing Article 30 and 110 in PQ they might share? Have plenty to return.


  • Advertisement
  • #1392
    jewels652
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 233 ✭✭jewels652


    iamanengine wrote: »
    Constitutional is slowly destroying my will to live...

    Is sucking up my soul........


  • #1393
    TCPIP
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 193 ✭✭TCPIP


    iamanengine wrote: »
    Constitutional is slowly destroying my will to live...
    jewels652 wrote: »
    Is sucking up my soul........

    I simultaneously feel like I could be CJ and that I know nothing about anything so tomorrow, even if the paper has all the topics I studied, could be a coin flip.


  • #1394
    iamanengine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    TCPIP wrote: »
    I simultaneously feel like I could be CJ and that I know nothing about anything so tomorrow, even if the paper has all the topics I studied, could be a coin flip.

    Yep, brain is so fried I have no idea if I know anything or not...just working off the assumption that I presumably have retained at least some information!


  • #1395
    leavingcert17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53 ✭✭leavingcert17


    iamanengine wrote: »
    Yep, brain is so fried I have no idea if I know anything or not...just working off the assumption that I presumably have retained at least some information!

    I’m the same. No time to test my knowledge now just cram


  • #1396
    lawstudentirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭lawstudentirl


    bobbyness wrote: »
    Cheeky as you're helping so many people. Any chance you have a grid on contract and tort law? :)

    Sorry but I actually don’t! Best of luck tracking one down


  • #1397
    bobbyness
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84 ✭✭bobbyness


    lawstudentirl wrote: »
    Sorry but I actually don’t! Best of luck tracking one down

    Thanks for letting me know! Best of luck with any exams you may have!


  • #1398
    lawstudentirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭lawstudentirl


    bobbyness wrote: »
    Thanks for letting me know! Best of luck with any exams you may have!

    Thanks, you too!


  • #1399
    godfather2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭godfather2


    So glad am not the only person feeling overwhelmed with Constitutional. I've read so much no idea if I am retaining any of it. At least by 12:30 tomorrow will be out of our misery.

    Then the hell that is equity begins lol.


  • #1400
    LJones18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33 ✭LJones18


    Do people think that Kerins / O'Brien decision is possible for constitution tomorrow?

    Finding it a bit hard to understand.


  • #1401
    godfather2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭godfather2


    LJones18 wrote: »
    Do people think that Kerins / O'Brien decision is possible for constitution tomorrow?

    Finding it a bit hard to understand.

    Really hoping it is going to be a case note. No typed notes to send you, what part are you struggling with? Perhaps people here can help. It centres around utterances of members non justicable. O brieb, was utterances in the dail no relief.
    Kerins immunity only applied when committee doing business of the house. PAC had obligations to remain within remit conferred on it. It didn't


  • Advertisement
  • #1402
    scooby321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58 ✭✭scooby321


    I failed Oct 19 because I confused Kerin's / Brien line with Cityview test in Q1... and now I'm afraid I'll do the same so if anyone has any pointers that would be great. brain is fried


  • #1403
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


    What would be two privacy cases we could potentially drop into a personal rights question for Constitutional tomorrow?


  • #1404
    iamanengine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    scooby321 wrote: »
    I failed Oct 19 because I confused Kerin's / Brien line with Cityview test in Q1... and now I'm afraid I'll do the same so if anyone has any pointers that would be great. brain is fried

    Kerins/O'Brien - Privilege to comments made in either House of the Oireachtas, they are non-justiciable unless there is a particularly egregious attack on a person's rights as in Kerins. Also their internal rules are non-justiciable again unless there is an attack on constitutional rights as in Callely

    Cityview Test - Non delegation doctrine, the Oireachtas can delegate some power to Ministers provided the principle Act lays down sufficient principles and policies such that the Minister is merely implementing the Act rather than law-making

    That is off the top of my head so I could be wrong, if anyone wants to chip in fire away


  • #1405
    ryansmith171
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24 ✭ryansmith171


    lawstudentirl wrote: »
    Thanks, you too!

    It says you have PM turned off it won’t let me send it to you ? Can you turn it on please :)


  • #1406
    Hamerzan Sickles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 147 ✭✭Hamerzan Sickles


    What are people hoping for the case note? I'm zoning in on four or five 2019 cases and wishing for a miracle.


  • #1407
    user115
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 241 ✭✭user115


    For a casenote how much do people write like 2 pages okay say main issue describe a bit about facts and then set out what court actually decided? I suppose you would say as well if it changes the law in some way or just confirms it?


  • #1408
    rightytighty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭rightytighty


    LawBoy2018 wrote: »
    What would be two privacy cases we could potentially drop into a personal rights question for Constitutional tomorrow?

    McGee and Norris


  • #1409
    godfather2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭godfather2


    user115 wrote: »
    For a casenote how much do people write like 2 pages okay say main issue describe a bit about facts and then set out what court actually decided? I suppose you would say as well if it changes the law in some way or just confirms it?

    Final part, maybe a few lines on significance of the decision


  • #1410
    iamanengine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »
    What are people hoping for the case note? I'm zoning in on four or five 2019 cases and wishing for a miracle.

    Some of the big 2019 cases -

    Kerins v McGuinness - Oireachtas
    Zalewski v Minister for Justice and Equality - Locus Standi
    Sweeney Ireland - Right to Silence
    Shatter v Guerin - Fair Procedure
    AC v Cork University Hospital - Liberty


  • Advertisement
  • #1411
    user115
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 241 ✭✭user115


    iamanengine wrote: »
    Some of the big 2019 cases -

    Kerins v McGuinness - Oireachtas
    Zalewski v Minister for Justice and Equality - Locus Standi
    Sweeney Ireland - Right to Silence
    Shatter v Guerin - Fair Procedure
    AC v Cork University Hospital - Liberty

    I have a feeling it will be Kerins or Shatter, moreover Kerns, Also Mohan v Ireland was a case that got good bit of coverage Mohan is locus standi as well, I'm really hoping for full Q on locus standi unsure though cause it was essay in spring 2018, there has been few big cases since though


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement