ruby1998 wrote: » Constitutional predictions which are my own and not by any means accurate lol just based on current trends in the law; Constitutional interpretation essay - recent case which went through methods in order they will be applied by court AG essay - topical, discussed by Carolan himself in a recent paper Liberty and issue of wardship etc - so many recent cases I know it appeared in Nov but I reckon we could see it again Delay/Pre trial Publicity/duty to seek out preserve - there's a recent trend here for the court to direct that these matters should be dealt with by trial court Unenumerated rights - recent case before SC which involved concept of derived rights Equality - trend in moving away from human personality doctrine Unconstitutionality - deferred declarations and also the date of declaration ambiguity there is recent case law here Family - impact of A42 theres recent caselaw here too or maybe surrogacy in Irish law and the lacuna
flepetch wrote: » Tort does anyone think it's safe to leave out Ryland's v Fletcher for land-based torts? i was thinking of focussing on nuisance above trespass or rylands
Lallers96 wrote: » You'd be notified if you were caught cheating because they told us beforehand that there is a chance to appeal. However in saying that I have zero confidence in that software, and I researched it heavily.[/QUOTE Just wondering why you have zero confidence ? I am doing EU and thinking of not using the treaties at all as i am so paranoid !
Creg12 wrote: » Lallers96 wrote: » You'd be notified if you were caught cheating because they told us beforehand that there is a chance to appeal. However in saying that I have zero confidence in that software, and I researched it heavily.[/QUOTE Just wondering why you have zero confidence ? I am doing EU and thinking of not using the treaties at all as i am so paranoid ! I agree with poster above, you are taking focus from your study by worrying about this,you are entitled to have tour legislation and it saved my ass in nov so I would really discourage against not bringing it in!
Creg12 wrote: » Lallers96 wrote: » You'd be notified if you were caught cheating because they told us beforehand that there is a chance to appeal. However in saying that I have zero confidence in that software, and I researched it heavily.[/QUOTE Just wondering why you have zero confidence ? I am doing EU and thinking of not using the treaties at all as i am so paranoid ! Literally there is nothing to be panicked about I sat EU property and equity last sitting ! Held up my property leg at the start but didn’t even hold up my Eu one Never showed them the room as I wasnt asked to and didn’t want to disrupt my set up ! I had no issues !
murray132 wrote: » Did anybody notice that the NBN 2021 for Tort were outdated. He spoke about vicarious liability coming up as it hadn’t been up since October 2018, when in fact it came up on the last two papers ?
legallyginger wrote: » Would anybody be able to direct me on the case of State(M) V Attorney General in right to travel?
WesternC123 wrote: » Constitutional In the Griffith manual family and education are together but are people just concentrating on the family? Has education ever been examined?
Iconic10 wrote: » inviolability of the dwelling is also a separate chapter in my manual - does this tend to come up, think only appeared once ?
FE1Nov20 wrote: » So this is all I have on that case hope it helps: It concerned a refusal by the respondent of an application by the mother of a child for a passport for that child. The child had been born to an Irish mother and a Nigerian father, and due to the mother’s inability to care for her she wanted the child go Nigeria to live with the father’s parents. The reason the passport was refused was that it would implicate the Minister in aiding a breach of the Adoption Act 1952 which provided that an illegitimate child of up to 7 years old may not be removed from the State. The Act also did not provide for such child to live abroad with the father or relatives of the father. This did not apply to legitimate children. Finlay P refused to hold this unconstitutional on the basis of Art 40.1 equality but upheld the challenge on the basis of a right to travel. Finlay P expressed the right to travel as the right to avail of pre-existing international travel provisions without arbitrary or unjustified interference. He held that a citizen has a right to a passport subject to public order concerns to avail of such arrangements.
FE1swag wrote: » Any predictions on what Directors Question will come in Company?
