lawgrad49 wrote: » His examiner report from March 2020, albeit brief, shows you what he is looking for if an essay like that came up again. It was a quote from the Kerins case, so it and O'Brien are 2 cases that show the courts will intervene (in extreme cases) in an area that traditionally would be seen to be non-justiciable. Then he said that people also discussed socio-economic cases where the courts have been hands-off- I'm thinking Sinnott, TD, etc here. I know Carolan is very hard to predict but I don't know if a full essay would be dedicated to Justiciability again?
bigchungus wrote: » Has anyone joined the exam lobby for criminal yet? Just wondering can we set it all up now and still be reading notes before 10?
vkfe1 wrote: » Company How is everyone approaching Directors Duties? It's due as a PQ so i'm guessing the main duties under Section 228 and cases for each? And reckless and fraudulent training then....anyone think otherwise?
Iso_123 wrote: » Equity I'm so torn today on what to do! I can't decide whether to just focus on revising what I have/looking at papers for today and tomorrow or whether to add in estoppel and try cram it in today. I have the following covered: DMC, strong v bird, 3 certainties, secret trusts, charitable trusts/cy pres, non charitable purpose trusts, resulting trusts, trusteeship, injunctions, undue influence, SP, rectification and satisfaction (i left out tracing, constructive trusts and estoppel..)
FEONE wrote: » The Oireachtas has enacted the Protection of Waterways Act 2020, The Long Title of the Act states that it is “An Act to address the problem of over fishing in Irish rivers and to preserve the natural resources of the State in its fish stocks, Section 2 of the Act allows the Minister for the Environment to make a river Cessation Order, Such an Order “has the effect of prohibiting all fishing on the designated river for a minimum of 10 years or such longer period as the Order may prescribe, Section 11 provides that a breach of such an Order is a criminal offence. Can anyone tell me please is this asking about the executive power or legislative power with regards to proportionality?
fe12020oct wrote: » also interested in this especially regarding section 11!
legallyginger wrote: » Is anyone doing the Ryan V Governor of Mountjoy case he mentioned yday? Find it so confusing regarding contempt aspect
ihatethesea wrote: » My lecturer said that the criminal offence part could be just another aspect of proportionality and also an aspect of Locus Standi as if there is a risk of criminal conviction, the person wouldn't have to wait until a breach occurs to challenge the Act.
FE1_2020_ wrote: » I had also thought about the locus standi aspect too, and was kinda thinking of mentioning that she may not have locus standi to challenge the Act as she does not own the property adjoining the river and thus only has mere permission/licence from the farmer to fish there.
ihatethesea wrote: » I think both: - S2 Act allows Min to make an order prohibiting fishing for 10 years - Legislative - Later in the question it says that the Minister introduced an order banning fishing for a further 25 years - Executive
FE1Hopefully1 wrote: » Would a license not constitute a right or an interest thus satisfying the standing rule
