jus_me wrote: » Early next week
bluerthanu wrote: » Currently studying equity and my understanding is that you apply Campus Oil but the evidential burden is much higher. So (afaik), applying the threshold test you would need to prove that there is a substantial risk of danger, which must occur before the trial of action. Cases after Szabo, Gurraghy v. Bord na gCon and JRM Sports v. RTE, have applied the Campus Oil test also. From what I can see QTI’s are generally problem questions (sometimes mixed with mandatory interlocutory injunctions) so would need to apply Campus Oil to the facts but you’re primarily focused on whether you can prove that there is fear of substantial risk of danger (Boswell was moral risk of certainty, but Szabo indicated the standard wasn’t that evidentially high) which will occur before the trial of action (and this must be either anticipated or feared, or occurred and the plaintiff fears its reoccurrence). The evidence of the danger will be vital, as Goeghegan J emphasised in Szabo. That’s kinda what I have, open to corrections.
FE1_2020_ wrote: » I wrestled with the same thoughts when I was doing my notes for that question. I came across the Murphy v Irish Water 2016 case where O'Regan J in the High Court stated that the test to be applied in application for a quia timet injunction was addressed by Geoghegan J in Szabo. Thus, I am going with the Szabo approach as it is the main case when Quia Timet injunctions are examined and affirming this approach by referencing O'Regan J comments in Murphy that the test to be applied in QT was addressed in Szabo.
dobby896 wrote: » Okay perfect, that makes far more sense. So, because the evidential burden is much higher, that is why Geoghegan J stated that it is appropriate for the court to consider the background, expertise and experience of expert witnesses who have been called to prove the risk. (usually in the problem questions there is always some dodgy report which the applicant is attempting to rely on). In the judgement as well, Geoghegan J stated that even if he were to apply Campus Oil, he would have reached the same verdict but just found it inappropriate in the circumstances of the case so that's where my confusion stemmed from, he seemed to establish his own set of principles while also saying that it is all g to continue to use Campus Oil. Thanks for clearing that up! However, do mandatory interlocutory injunctions not apply the Boyhan and Lignham principles as opposed to Campus Oil in relation to establishing a strong case of likelihood of success at trial?
awsah wrote: » yes we can use the bathroom and we have to notify them, I'm not sure how exactly...put a "back in 5 mins" sign in front of the camera?
Lelila wrote: » In the practice exam I think I saw a button you can press for a bathroom break.
Aoibhin511 wrote: » Really? what did the icon look like
fe.nofun wrote: » Anyone know the story with legislative sources? Are we allowed to use physical copies in this exam format or can we use an online form? I have emailed them 3 times and called twice but no response. Also waiting on my script still... a month after applying for it...
channing90 wrote: » Just finished the mock and it seems straight foward, I couldn’t see any place to click for a toilet break except at the start they say go before the exam. Also the inbuilt camera can only see your face while typing, how can they even know it’s the legislation that your looking at since they can’t see that much through the camera.
Dliodoir2021 wrote: » They could have the screen that they show us of our face zoomed in a lot to make us think that. It so isn't worth the risk to chance anything though! I was trying to use the sticky note and found that it kept blocking either the problem question or the answer input box. (I couldn't drag it outside of that area). I went on live chat about it 3 times and the people were based in Arizona, thought I was studying in New York, and said the sticky note thing must be provided by our exam provider (or something along those lines) - either way, they reloaded my exam and each time it didn't rectify it. So now we have a 'sticky note' that isn't fit for purpose as it covers our question or our work! Unbelievable system!!
Lawlaw12 wrote: » Same for me, but if you use the other 'note' option it lets you move it to the righthand side so it's not blocking the question or answer box
Fe1Student20 wrote: » Were you told this over the phone? Just not seeing anything on the LS website nor did I receive any email confirmation, unless I'm missing something. I'm presuming that's how vague they were and they didn't give you anything more than "early next week", which will likely mean Monday eve the week after, the night before Tort.
jus_me wrote: » I phoned the law society yesterday and Carmel said early next week and that we’d receive an email.
bkm2020 wrote: » I'm gone all paranoid about the mock now. I found the system actually fine.. but it is ok to "jump" from one question and come back to it? I seen something about clock on a timer and exiting the page? I would like to be able to log on to the exam again to just double check for myself... Had a lot of technical difficulty at the start with the system diagnostics. Don't want that on the day but you can live chat for assistance.. another query for the LS to see if this eats into exam time!
Dliodoir2021 wrote: » And hopefully it's not someone in Arizona we're talking to on live chat that thinks we're in New York (which happened me today)
Hazel774 wrote: » Has anyone been getting responses to their emails lately? I've emailed a few different email addresses in the LS in the last few weeks with questions about the exams, and all have been ignored. I genuinely cannot believe how many unanswered questions I still have this close to the start of the exams. This drip feeding of information is driving me up the wall, any time they try and give us a tiny bit of information I'm just left with a thousand more questions which all go unanswered, I'm so frustrated with them at this point
