Booker4 wrote: » I just want to confirm that 50% is a pass!!
lsheehaneire wrote: » Personal email "Please note result release date should be third week of September 2020."
Wonderstruck wrote: » *shouting over confusing chaos in this thread* All I want is the hardcopy of my March 2020 results!
lsheehaneire wrote: » Results for the rest of us are the 3rd week of September, just received email from Law society. Congrats to everyone who is on the way to blackhall, enjoy the celebrations !!
Lallers96 wrote: » So hang on a second. We're going to get the results 2 weeks before the next sitting. What a ****ing joke. That's not enough time for rechecks, and what happens if you fail it quite badly and want to resit in August? You can't because by then the ****ing deadline will be passed for the application. What a bunch of disorganised fools. Never had any issue with colleges taking so fecking long to mark papers or answer simple queries by email or answer the phone.. Urgghhh
FE.ONE wrote: » Looking for an up to date Equity and Criminal grid if anyone would be so kind, have plenty to swap.
jewels652 wrote: » I was offered a traineeship so I’ll be staring ppc1 next week. I just have a question when we finish ppc1 will we go to ppc2 immediately or do we have to do in office training for a few months and then go to ppc2
L.E.D wrote: » Be extremely unfair if you fail but presumed you did well, you can't resit it on October then, obviously the notes would need to be updated and changed to get a pass second time around, joke!
Fe1VanWilder wrote: » I’m in that exact category. I wonder how long it will take them to send out copies of exam scripts this time
Louis Litt wrote: » Passed both EU and Tort. Expected to fail Tort as i answered the intensional inflection of emotional distress Q on Nervous Shock, so for anyone else that did same, you will get the marks for it.
hullaballoo wrote: » iamanengine wrote: » Well, that is confusing haha I got a grid off someone doing the city colleges course and that question is marked as Trespass to the Person not Nervous Shock. Also the way its phrased - Advise Mary (the tortfeasor) as to any potential liability in tort law that she may have - her liability would be under the tort of infliction of emotional distress. If it was Nervous Shock I am thinking it would ask whether Joseph has any recourse under Tort, which would be under Nervous Shock. Infliction of Emotional Distress being the Tort and Nervous Shock being the type of injury. Maybe he allowed it seeing as the Q is kind of ambiguous? Not sure though, I definitely could be wrong! Edit - I just checked the examiner report. He says "A question on the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress..." hullaballoo wrote: » Nervous shock is not a tort in the way that intentional infliction of emotional distress is. Nervous shock is a condition that may be a result of a tort (wrong) but it is not a wrong itself. So any given question can be about one or both the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and nervous shock. Conflating the two concepts would cause confusion. I will try and clarify by reference to more accessible torts and conditions. Take the tort of negligence. The wrong is the negligent act or omission that gives rise to loss, injury, damage etc. A straightforward example is concussion suffered as a result of being rear-ended in a car crash. The tort or wrong is the negligent driving (failing to stop, driving at an excessive speed, failure to keep a proper look out etc.) The loss, injury, damage is the concussion. In an intentional infliction of emotional distress case, the tort is the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress and the loss, injury, damage etc. might be nervous shock. So to continue with a road traffic scenario by way of analogy, if someone drives so erratically and in such a dangerous way as to give other road users such a fright that one or more of them develop nervous shock, for example, an out of control driver mounting a footpath at a busy bus stop but miraculously failing to hit any pedestrians might still cause loss or damage to people at the bus stop from their wrongdoing. This may be held to be the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and some of the rather fortunate unfortunates at the bus stop may develop nervous shock and have a case against the driver of the vehicle. THIS POST IS ABOUT NERVOUS SHOCK VS. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DAMAGE!!! Hopefully that settles it. The real shame is that there's any confusion in the first place tbh because it should be made crystal clear they are entirely different concepts every time lecturers encounter them.
iamanengine wrote: » Well, that is confusing haha I got a grid off someone doing the city colleges course and that question is marked as Trespass to the Person not Nervous Shock. Also the way its phrased - Advise Mary (the tortfeasor) as to any potential liability in tort law that she may have - her liability would be under the tort of infliction of emotional distress. If it was Nervous Shock I am thinking it would ask whether Joseph has any recourse under Tort, which would be under Nervous Shock. Infliction of Emotional Distress being the Tort and Nervous Shock being the type of injury. Maybe he allowed it seeing as the Q is kind of ambiguous? Not sure though, I definitely could be wrong! Edit - I just checked the examiner report. He says "A question on the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress..."
hullaballoo wrote: » Nervous shock is not a tort in the way that intentional infliction of emotional distress is. Nervous shock is a condition that may be a result of a tort (wrong) but it is not a wrong itself. So any given question can be about one or both the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and nervous shock. Conflating the two concepts would cause confusion. I will try and clarify by reference to more accessible torts and conditions. Take the tort of negligence. The wrong is the negligent act or omission that gives rise to loss, injury, damage etc. A straightforward example is concussion suffered as a result of being rear-ended in a car crash. The tort or wrong is the negligent driving (failing to stop, driving at an excessive speed, failure to keep a proper look out etc.) The loss, injury, damage is the concussion. In an intentional infliction of emotional distress case, the tort is the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress and the loss, injury, damage etc. might be nervous shock. So to continue with a road traffic scenario by way of analogy, if someone drives so erratically and in such a dangerous way as to give other road users such a fright that one or more of them develop nervous shock, for example, an out of control driver mounting a footpath at a busy bus stop but miraculously failing to hit any pedestrians might still cause loss or damage to people at the bus stop from their wrongdoing. This may be held to be the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and some of the rather fortunate unfortunates at the bus stop may develop nervous shock and have a case against the driver of the vehicle.
LawCopy16 wrote: » The thing that I don't understand about all of this is that it says on the website that "If a physical sitting of the examination is not possible, the Committee will consider alternative options" but on the timetable itself it says that if a physical sitting of the exam is not possible " we will contact all candidates immediately and a full refund of fees will be issued" which suggests that the exam would be cancelled completely. So do they mean that if it can't go ahead physically that they will find an alternative (remote sitting) or that they will cancel it completely?
[Deleted User] wrote: » Can’t we usually view our paper before paying 115€ for the recheck? As far as I was aware the recheck was a check that the marks were added up right, not that you were given the right marks if that makes sense.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1c2638d40c8423fc1a2b2b1a2a01a3b9.svg)
