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

nicolesd wrote: »

are people learning interlocutory injunctions themselves or is that likely to come up?

whats the most important cases to to for QT injunctions?

really starting to panic now!!!

Szabo v Esat Digifone for Quia Timet. Geoghegan J has a 5 or 7 point set of principles. If QT comes up it can and will be solved on that case e.g. as one example someone will make scientific claims probably be a PHD student or summat and you’ll cross reference it back considering the importance the justice placed on expert evidence.

QT is an interlocutory injunction so there’s no distinction. Interlocutory itself means lasting until trial and may be prohibitory or mandatory by nature. QT is the classic prohibitory interlocutory injunction. It might be sought where for example a footballer / celebrity was aware of an article going to print containing defamatory remarks and he / she wished to stop it.

Don’t panic pal, stay calm, break it down, read it over. You’ll hit it for 6 tomorrow!!

A’right, I was in the motor a while back listening to Q102 and there was something on the news about a case on journalistic privilege. I meant to check it out later but I forget and didn’t find anything today on the internet.

I don’t know if it was SC or just HC but it’s fresh, recent and I want it for Wednesday HaHa! Does anyone else know TF what I’m going on about? A case name or a link would be most appreciated. We’re talking mid August - late September and it’s about disclosing sources!

JayFE1 wrote: »

A’right, I was in the motor a while back listening to Q102 and there was something on the news about a case on journalistic privilege. I meant to check it out later but I forget and didn’t find anything today on the internet.

I don’t know if it was SC or just HC but it’s fresh, recent and I want it for Wednesday HaHa! Does anyone else know TF what I’m going on about? A case name or a link would be most appreciated. We’re talking mid August - late September and it’s about disclosing sources!

Corcoran (t/a The Democrat) v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana (Sept 2020)

Good case on journalistic sources

Lawlaw12 wrote: »

Corcoran (t/a The Democrat) v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana (Sept 2020)

Good case on journalistic sources

An interesting case alright! Great stuff! Cheers LawLaw!

Anyone have short notes on offer and acceptance? Panicking now because I have constitutional as well. Thanks

LeagleEagle747 wrote: »

For equity decided to go with the 3 certainties, DMC, Injunctions, charitable purpose trusts, cy-pres, non-charitable purpose trusts, and torn between trustees duties, undue influence and specific performance, but at this rate just too tired to care anymore

I’m doing the same!! Looking at specific performance now, trustees is just too long to learn tonight

CoconutHeadMia wrote: »

Constitutional
Personal rights are huge so wont be able to cover everything - anything in particular worth focusing on?
I have right to life, livelihood, privacy, good name and fair procedures

Do you have property rights?
and maybe unenumerated rights doctrine

Hi does anyone know the test for strength of case in Mareva Injunctions.
TIA

loosehead1973 wrote: »

Check out Re Mariette... squash courts for Erin School considered charitable under education.


quote="fe12020oct;115237090"]equity

in a charitable trust q - would promotion of sport in primary schools be considered a valid charitable gift? i know promotion of sport cant be a valid charitable gift but could you extend it to education and say it could be if considered in physical education in the primary schools??

[/quote]

channing90 wrote: »

Any recent constitutional cases that are a must for any topic ? What’s Gemma o doherty case fall under for example ?

I'm also unsure what the Gemma O'D case falls under??
I think it's quite broad as she made a load of arguments, I'll probably leave it out

nicolesd wrote: »

Anyone have any advice in answering charitable q which includes the Cypres doctrine? how to spot if she wants us to talk about cypres?

also in regard to cypres only applying to a valid charitable trust which fails can anyone explain why the valid charitable trust initially fails? (feel really stupid asking this but i want to be clear)

I failed equity the first time just because I forgot to mention Cy-pres. So if I were you, I'd mention it anyway, whatever the situation is!

fe12020oct wrote: »

I’m doing the same!! Looking at specific performance now, trustees is just too long to learn tonight

DM me if either of ye need any condensed notes for SP/UI, these exams are so chronic but lots of help on this discussion board if ye need it with extra topics!

legallyginger wrote: »

Thanks so much! Don't know how I missed it possibly the endless reading:(

No worries. I feel you! I feel like I'm getting cross eyed sometimes from the endless reading

Healyjhow wrote: »

Hey just wondering if anyone could clarify if a QTI comes up tomorrow do you talk about campus oil for interlocutory injunction and then szabo decision/ the importance of subjective evidence ?

I'm at loss with this whole campus oil debacle, I was hoping that we first utilize the test to prove whether or not there was a substantial risk of danger that was imminent and if this was not the case then the QT would be refused. If this test was proved then we would apply the campus oil principles.

I just cant get my head around it and my griffith manual just heavily leans with Szabo test and just says Geoghegan J says there not relevant and then says however they were applied in the RTE case previously.

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

I'm at loss with this whole campus oil debacle, I was hoping that we first utilize the test to prove whether or not there was a substantial risk of danger that was imminent and if this was not the case then the QT would be refused. If this test was proved then we would apply the campus oil principles.

I just cant get my head around it and my griffith manual just heavily leans with Szabo test and just says Geoghegan J says there not relevant and then says however they were applied in the RTE case previously.

The shortest answer to this I think is that you can do both (1) just substantial risk of danger from Szabo, focussing on evidence etc (followed in Murphy v. Irish Water, albeit O’Regan J still referenced Campus Oil), and (2) Campus Oil that notes there is likely a higher standard arising from Szabo (Gurragh v. Bord na gCon and National Irish Bank v. RTE literally just applied Campus Oil).

You can do both approaches by making a good case for doing so based solely on the contradictory judgment of Geoghegan J in Szabo: (1) he referenced Spry’s Equity that there is no different in the tests for quia timet and a normal interlocutory, (2) he nevertheless found it distasteful to apply the terminology of the ‘balance of convenience’ where it affected children (Kirwan’s injunctions textbook says this could principally be the reason why Geoghegan J didn’t apply Campus Oil), and (3) Geoghegan J went on to apply Campus Oil just in case! Given it’s a problem question you wouldn’t get much out of just applying Szabo too it has to be remembered really.

Notwithstanding all the above too, it’s worth pointing out there’s been no Supreme Court judgment here (Szabo was the High Court), so realistically it would be incumbent (and very responsable) on a careful solicitor to advise their client that a court could adopt either just Szabo or Campus Oil. Generally, however, the QT problem questions make reference to some poor evidence for the fear (as another poster pointed out), so I think you’d have to make reference to Geoghegan J’s comments about the witnesses and the higher evidentiary standard required.

This is what I’ll be doing if it comes up anyway, hope it works!