flepetch wrote: » company starting to freak out a bit over company, feel like i really don't have the space in my brain to retain any information. does anyone have any predictions that could help me narrow down topics? much appreciated
lawDani wrote: » I would also feel more confident if I had that much covered too. So far I have those with the exclusion of trustees and probably undue influence at this stage. Ahhhhhh.....
Fedone wrote: » Constitutional He mentioned the Ivana’s Bacik case where they specifically outlined the methods of constitutional interpretation so I’d have that ready. He also mentioned a case concerning the AG that I hadn’t come across so could be worth covering well also.
EmmaO94 wrote: » Here's the slides from today!
law1234567 wrote: » you are a star thank you!!
law1234567 wrote: » do you remember what the AG case was?
awsah wrote: » it was O shea v The legal Aid board it has to do with teh AG scheme that anyone who has dealt with legal aid in the courts would probably know about, it is usually in habeas applications but they also grant it for high court bails (which is where I have seen it referenced). Basically the AG pays for the person in custody to bring these cases. it is separate to legal aid in that this is being provided for by the AG. This case involved a refusal to pay after the judge recommended a payment be made under that scheme (for reference when you make a high court bail application you must specifically request a recommendation under the AG scheme or you don't get paid). The legal aid board argued that it was decrictionary by the AG and not mandatory. Court said that this scheme "filled a gap" and there would be constitutional consequences if it did not exist as people would not be able to take up these applications
FE1Pleb wrote: » Anyone willing to share their own notes from the conference? Will front the cost of it. DM me
Lawwww2020 wrote: » Are we allowed to tab legislation? Can’t find anything on the website to clarify!
LegalEagle21 wrote: » Constitutional What topic does the Friends case relate to?
neon123 wrote: » Hi folks, are people seeing their upcoming exams on Betterexams yet?
fe1fi20 wrote: » yeah, just my one for tomorrow. not constitutional yet tho
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"
DUMSURFER wrote: » No because it's not actually part of your answer. Just make sure you put a line under it. I just hit underscore until it spanned the width of the page in November and then started my answer as normal. I mean, it's still your rough work but just under a better heading. It doesn't matter if the information is relevant in that section as long as the irrelevant stuff doesn't bleed into your actual answer. It's actually a plus if you have information that isn't relevant in your 'answer notes' as long as you don't include it in your actual answer. Why? Well... (1). The first thing you're showing the examiner is how vast your knowledge is by having all that information, whether relevant or irrelevant, in your answer notes. (2). When you include the relevant stuff and leave out the irrelevant stuff in your actual answer, it shows the examiner that you're not just writing down everything you know. You're being very deliberate with the information that you use and that you are attempting to answer the particular question asked. Now, if you're more comfortable using whatever sticky note system they have in place, by all means, but it's just a tip and one which I know for a fact saved my ass in one of the exams last November.
chris1231 wrote: » I've heard of other exams that ask you to use a mirror to show computer prior to exam.. Did this happen in the October fe1s? All the mirrors I have are attached to walls so might be a problemo
vkfe1 wrote: » It's a fairly predictable paper. Know Corporate borrowing and Directors duties really well. I'm doing an essay plan for Soloman V Soloman (piercing the veil), Winding Up, Receivership, Restriction. Minority Shareholder Oppression comes up a lot - it came up last year but don't rule it out.
FEONE wrote: » Hi, I was thinking of going into constitutional with the following; Equality Family Liberty Seperation of Powers Interpretation AG Mootness/Locus Standi Personal Rights Religion Property Going to have a brief knowledge of expression and due course also. Am I missing anything substantial? Really trying to leave out Oireachtas also just don't like that topic.
ihatethesea wrote: » Do you think Right to Silence? I really am thrown after all the Webinar talk, need to do a major re-think! But what you have looks good!
