EmmaO94 wrote: » Tort Any predictions you guys? I know Defamation is due up, but anything else you'd possibly put your money on, having studied the grid etc? Trying to narrow down.
tippertruck wrote: » Would probably use SIOT or Bresciani as well for Art 30 if you are talking about services rendered. For EU health inspections then there is Commission v Germany. Regarding 110 you could use Humblot, Commission v UK (Beer/wine case) and Commission v Greece (motor cylinder size)
Fe1user5555 wrote: » The only thing that consoled me about not sitting the exam was the fact I couldn’t have even answered 2 questions fully if I had attempted it so I can’t imagine the frustration you must have felt!!
Costello95 wrote: » For Art 30 and 110 I have Denkavit and Co-Frutta, any other major cases you think I need?
SamWFE1 wrote: » Hey guys just wondering do you think it would be foolish to just use the city colleges manuals to study from, or should I make my own notes out of them? I feel like making notes takes up a lot of time I could be using to actually study the material so it's counter productive. Are the manuals too long and too detailed to learn from? Any advice appreciated.
Iso_123 wrote: » yeah defo add commission v Italy (statistical levy case) - defines a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty for art 30 would also include Bauhuis v Netherlands about the vet inspection and then another handy one is john walker & sons for similar goods re art 110(1) - it lists some factors court will consider when assessing whether goods are similar for purpose of discriminatory tax and 110(1)
Iso_123 wrote: » I did both but defo have more cases and material for 34/36. I think that there just is more material generally for 34/36 though
Lealaw wrote: » I didn't focus on it but it just seems to be stuck in my head. It is short and relatively straight forward, grand to have in my back pocket but I probably wouldn't go focusing on it as it only came up in Nov.
Fe123 wrote: » Have people focused more on art 34 & 36 than 30 & 110 for FMOG
Iso_123 wrote: » For judicial review did everyone just focus on standing? or did people also do what can be reviewed and grounds for review?
keelfe1s wrote: » Ya I’m leaving it out!! Just focusing on nuisance. I have so far damages, defences, trespass to P/L, defamation, passing off, occupiers liability, defective products, nervous shock, economic loss/negligent misstatement, concurrent wrong doers, res ispa loq, duty of c, causation and nuisance! Praying it’s enough! Now I mean I still have to go over half of that! I’m hope I still remember stuff from 4 weeks ago when I was properly studying it! Not doing VL AND PROFESSIONAL Neg and kinda regretting it now but too late for me!!
corbrian1998 wrote: » I just did standing and changes by the Lisbon treaty
Fe1user5555 wrote: » Anyone leaving out rylands v fletcher for tort?
AA247 wrote: » I did the same! Bailed on an exam as I felt I’d too little covered and was taking a chance. Just panicked. Don’t know about the rest of you, but I have to say I cried when I seen what came up. I could have answered a 6th question, albeit at a push. The regret was worse than the relief! Learning from my mistake always give it a go because the reality is you only have 40 min per Q so only so much you can write. You don’t need to know everything to a tee. But here that’s me giving advice I didn’t take ha ha! It’s so much easier to bail online I found!
