examsfe12021 wrote: » could someone clarify for me in a quia timet question do we use the campus oil principles?? thank u !!!
Al1501 wrote: » I've just gone back over my exam grid and past papers. Mortgages usually comes up as either a problem or essay asking how a bank may enforce security. Neither it nor co-ownership were on the November paper,. Given how consistent the paper normally is topic wise, if the usual examiner is back, would I be mad to say that succession, adverse possession, co-ownership, and mortgages would probably cover someone for property?
ruby1998 wrote: » Anyone want to hazard a guess at company predictions? I don't think I can study tonight Constitutional has ruined me
awsah wrote: » campus oil is only used for interlocutory inunctions so depending on the question you could discuss campus Oil in the context of interlocutory quia timet only
awsah wrote: » Actually I just read that szabo held that the campus oil principles were not of application but that was because he felt there was something distasteful in balancing the convenience of the defendant being able to carry on his business against the alleged health risks to the plaintiffs He did hold that of he had applied the test he would have refused the injunction anyway as plantiffs had not established a serious issue to be tried
examsfe12021 wrote: » perfect thanks a mill !!!
nmurphy1441 wrote: » My own personal predictions would be PQ on DD and PQ on Directors Loans, PQ on examinership and PQ on liquidation in some form. Essays then would be Ultra Vires, Reform of CA, Foss v Harbottle and SLP(holding companies & subsidiaries)! Long shot I know!!!
fLawless123 wrote: » Is anybody else not able to see Equity and the other subjects on the calendar on Betterexaminations?
flepetch wrote: » has anybody ever paid for an exam and not sat it? do you get a refund and pay again for the next sitting or is it a deferral sort of situation? i'm really struggling mentally and dont think i can handle sitting tort next week along with the other exams i'm doing. would i be better off just sitting it and giving it a go than trying to get a refund from LS? i hear it can take months
Lealaw wrote: » Surely something would be due up on corporate borrowing, it didn't appear in November. I have my fingers crossed for that. Also city colleges NBN said likely receivership but examinership is due a turn so one or other of them.
nmurphy1441 wrote: » I noticed that too! I’m basing my choice between receivership and examinership on which didn’t come up most recently so that’s why I’m going with examinership. A crystallisation question would be nice too though!
nmurphy1441 wrote: » I’d throw in trespass the person and damages personally!!!
Smiley283 wrote: » Hi there, would anyone be able to send me an up-to-date tort grid? And it would really help me out if you could share your notes on; vicarious liablity professional negligence? I have passed all the other fe-1 exams so can trade notes and sample answers!
caius97 wrote: » Hope these are useful!
mydogwentroof wrote: » Was the question on delayed prosecution for assault altered by thr fact thatbhe had been convicted already??? Like most the cases i had were about pre-trial prohibition not appeal??
Fe10000 wrote: » Could someone please point me in the right direction for Corporate Borrowing - does the Revenue Commissioner rank in priority to a fixed charge over book debts? Where is this stated in legislation?
moeby wrote: » I think I saw in the examiner report that Revenue Commissioner ranks in priority if the charge is not registered under s409 but also section 1001 of the Taxes Consolidation Act Open to correction if this is wrong though
ruby1998 wrote: » I just mentioned in the end that he could appeal his conviction on the basis of the trial judge's failure to consider the impact of delay failure to seek out/preserve etc
