Tea-a-Maria wrote: » There is too much EU law. >.<
Ownleme wrote: » Considering sleeping with my notes on my face last week in the hopes the information would transfer. Didn't try it in the end but could be necessary now
TheLawBear2 wrote: » hahaha this is after cracking me up... I've resorted to caffine tablets... I rekon if you dont sleep and refrain from being in contact with all other humans and life in general.....there just maaay be a hope!!
Milkypops wrote: » does anyone have a short note on satisfaction for equity....short being the most important word in that sentence Cheers!
Milkypops wrote: » im thinking joint account and quistclose trusts(note) rectification and specific performance aswell (maybe together) Im iffy that undue influence will come up, I think its due a break and it also came up in the Contract paper this sitting. Mareva Injunctions with the case of Collins v Gharion being very recent aswell. God Equity sucks
backformore wrote: » Hi all, Hope study going well. Would anyone happen to have the question or wording of the question that came up for Mareva Injunctions in the Spring 2012 exam paper? It was an essay question. thanks
SeanPaul69 wrote: » Thought eu was fair enough in terms of topics, some of the qs asked though were a bit challenging to answer properly...did transparency come and pr come up in that q?? I thought it was only direct effect, supremacy nd equivalence and effectivenesss
Inmyownworld wrote: » In recent years the Irish Courts have begun to adopt a less restrictive approach to the requirement that a plaintiff seeking a mareva injunction must show that there is a real risk that the defendant will dispose of his or her assets for the purpose of preventing the plaintiff recovering damages. This approach will help plaintiffs striving to recover large debts from debtors, making mareva injunctions a very real and powerful tool in debt recovery litigation. Discuss the above, supporting your answer with reference to relevant case law. I'm really hoping it's mareva injunctions coming up as a full question. Quia Timet maybe as a note question?
Fe1stresser wrote: » Yea I did transparency but I mentioned direct effect supremacy and equivalence and effectiveness too... It was a bit of a mess to be honest!
Cheeks22 wrote: » Any chance you could give me a quick note on the significance of Collins V Gharion decision for Mareva Injunctions? Thanks a mil
Glinda! wrote: » Paper was pretty much what I expected except for PR and also thought other cases would feature casenote question. Had gud first 3 questions but ran outa time did last 2 questions in last half hr and because they wer so rushed nothing ws comig to me so very poor attempt marks only im afraid!
Lawstudent007 wrote: » When you mean poor do you mean not very long and not on point? Or do you mean on point but not much case law and about 2 pages...
Glinda! wrote: » Sorry, the second last question i did was Q6 literraly any point that came to mind i wrote dwn cudnt remember case law wrote page for each part. Last Q was Q2 essay had no clue at all jus started listing criminal articles n Title V bout a page tops!
Lawstudent007 wrote: » I see what you mean... You should get some marks for it though... I wonder if three good questions and two vague ones is sufficient in most cases to get over the line...
rocksch2 wrote: » Was transparency def part of it? I put it in along with Direct Effect and Supramacy but doubting if it definitely asked that. Need 4 good questions cause my fifth was a farce
Fe1stresser wrote: » PR where??
Glinda! wrote: » I thought PR would be asked and it wasnt
Lawstudent007 wrote: » How long for te results by the way?
