stav wrote: » Hey all! I was wondering if Reckless and Fraudulent Trading (Directors Statutory Duties Arising on Insolvency) is an important topic to cover for the Company March 2020 sitting? Really running out of time and trying to figure out what to leave out. Thanks a million in advance for the advice
lawgrad49 wrote: » Yeah, I was thinking the same, I never submitted my practice exam on the day, I just closed the chrome window. Only when I came on here after did I see people saying you were to receive a message about successfully submitting at the end. At least I know to do it this week in the actual exam!
Iso_123 wrote: » for my notes on non charitable purpose trusts I literally have a few points on the policy reasons against enforcing them and like 2 cases there then a few points and 2/3 cases each for the 3 exceptions. I think (hope) this should be enough as I've only seen it come up as a note on its own or mixed in with a problem. has anyone ever seen it come up in any other way? Would love an opinion on whether people feel this is enough detail
MylesH wrote: » Cheers - My monitor (mirrored from laptop, not secondary) is at a weird angle to my webcam (laptop webcam) so I'm not directly in front of the camera. Feedback that this was alright would have been reassuring, ah well sure.
awsah wrote: » After that talk I would be looking at Liberty Ag Equality Moot ness Family - rights of the family, personal rights and rights of non-citizens I would be prepared to do an essay on the Friends of the Irish Government case with headings as follows -Non Justibality Standing Unenumerated rights - right to a healthy environment Edit to include an essay on the senator case which could be tied into a president question
LeagleEagle747 wrote: » Anyone know where one could find any case summaries for the cases mentioned like Bacik, Friends of the Irish Environment, Udaras Uchtala etc. from today's lecture?
FE1s2021 wrote: » What are you including as part of non-justiciability..I dont think there is anything in my manual on it
Fe1user5555 wrote: » god i have about 4 cases for mootness hope that doesn't come up alone!
awsah wrote: » I am just going off of the cases he mentioned, you would need the MC v Clinical Director of CMH case. It talked about how a credible claim for damages in a case may not deem a case moot
FEONE wrote: » What exactly comes under non justiciability? My manual makes no reference to it
WesternC123 wrote: » Could anyone tell me what the outcome of the Ivana Bacik case was? and how it relates to constitutional interpretation?
mcdurh wrote: » You think? I've left resulting trusts, purpose trusts and constructive blank that's a serious worry for me, part of me is thinking about adding one of them to the list but I just don't have the time.
DFMCD190384 wrote: » Totally agree. I typed out my rough plan under a "Rough Plan" heading and then started my answer underneath under "Answer" heading like I would in the written exam. I didn't use sticky notes or anything as found them annoying.
DUMSURFER wrote: » I do the same but if I can offer one tip. Do not put the heading as "Rough Work" because it tells the examiner to ignore it and that it's essentially just scribbles meant for you. Call it "Answer Notes", then put a line under it and start your actual answer... That way if the examiner gets to the end and is looking for marks to bring you over the line. They can find it in there as it's technically part of your answer. It's the smallest thing, but it can make the biggest difference!
awsah wrote: » could they not mark you down for talking about irrelevant topics? it has been noticed in so many examiner reports that people spoke about things that were not relevant to the particular facts of the question. I am really just asking if people think that the examiner looks to give marks like this? I was worried in the last sitting to leave notes as I was afraid I would be marked down for "writing everything I know about a topic"
flepetch wrote: » this was my thought process for the last sitting also. i think i ended up deleting some rough work as it wasn't relevant/in my answer so i didn't want to be dumping down information for the sake of it. i also quickly realised that where i lost marks in Qs was because my answers were so poorly structured due to info dumping haha. i suppose its difficult to know what the examiner will do but if your rough work is very clearly not your main body of the answer then it should be safe enough to leave it in, surely?
fe1person wrote: » Constitutional Lecture with Eoin Carolan - The Leading Irish Cases of 2020 Hey! For anyone that missed it, this guy tweeted the lecture.https://twitter.com/ronanlupton/status/1374003670745034752
