Arcturus2112 wrote: » Does anyone know the name of the recent Supreme Court case that overturned a drink-driving conviction where the accused had been restrained in handcuffs unnecessarily? It might arise in a 38.1 question in constitutional but I can't recall the name
LawCQ91 wrote: » Dpp v Cullen ! Although i think that case was decided without consider the constituional issue though, I could be wrong!
LawCQ91 wrote: » Quick Q for constitutional Can anyone clarify re: removing medical treatment. Say a person in re: a ward of court situation. Family members can apply remove artificial life prolong treatment for their family member? Even though the person in qeustion is in vegetative state and not able to give consent?
missindigo123 wrote: » Yes, you can apply to have medical treatment withdrawn where there is no curative effect. If there is a curative effect to the medication, can't remove it unless the hospital get the consent of an adult capable of making a decision. Court had a lot of empathy in re ward because she could have been in pain but had no way of telling them etc. Does that help?!
Troels Hartmann wrote: » Just out of Company! 1. Essay on SLP and Salomon (identical to last October...) 2. Essay on defences to a s.150 restriction 3. Minority protection - s205 with a bit of a Foss v Harbottle element (I think) 4. Problem on directors duties 5. Essay on Meetings, shareholder approval etc 6. Problem on restriction (?) and holding director liable for losses? I wasn't really sure 7. Problem on fraudulent preference and realisation of assets in liquidation 8. Essay on retention of title clauses (same as last October!) I did 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 and think I got solid enough answers. I'd say people would have been thrown by the repetition of the two essays from last October but (thank God) I had the Salomon one more or less prepared so I got a semi-decent answer on it Glad that's over
mirm wrote: » Q6 I did fraudulent/reckless trading wit a bit of failure to keep proper books and records and mentioned the loan to the director, I never mentioned restriction! Now I don't feel so positive
jenspondolik wrote: » I think in new rules its just three. Can u pull an alnighter and cover ones that used to come up regularly though not sure if this sitting will be the usual. Did you sit it before? Ive tort and constitutional after company and I'll prob get 6 hrs sleep in three days as nothing done but its worth a shot?. You could cover directors restriction Borrowings SLP; minority borrowings six topics and you could get dog lucky. If you gave an hour each you'd be up til 12 and get up at six then for three more hrs revision and you won't have lost much. Last sitting I passed contract with 3 qs and half a day study in sept (had read it last march and like u focused on three and didnt do it just signed in) and failed company with 3 Q's in sept so these exams are strange you don't know what you'll pass til you get results letter. If you've any bit done at all or even did company at all go in and write like the clappers. I've learned my lesson from abstaining from exams and wishing I'd done them after
FoxReal wrote: » What did you write for part a, b, c and d for Q7? a) I said he could keep the wages because they weren't given to him with the intention to defraud anyone. I think McBernie case says that employees have a right to ages ahead of creditors. b) that the transfer seems to lack fraudulent preference so was probably ok and was done before winding up. c) I said that this could be a deposition and was done after winding up so probably void. I gave Ashmark, when it comes to cashing a cheque, as an example, only now to relise that Ashmark says that interest on an overdraft is not a disposition. d) Without much of a clue what to write, I said that that it's the liquidators role to pay the funds to whichever creditor is due them. If the landlord was due the funds here then the transaction should be ok. (Really didn't know what to write for that one) Did you say something similar or am I was off?
add727 wrote: » That was my 5th Q. Shocking. Didn't know the area at all, was so stuck. Vaguely said approx that, but in about a sentence each as of course only left myself 15mins. Def didn't pass the Q but please god I got a handful of marks, and my other incredibly average answers got me over the line!
Legalseagull wrote: » Could someone offer a definition of presumptive invalidity in relation at Equality in constitutional? I think I'm getting it right but can't seem to nail it down in a few sentences! Appreciated.
missindigo123 wrote: » Can anyone tell me if I'm right or wrong with this for Vicarious liability in tort. There must be a relationship Atkin to that of employer / employee - courts will use the control test traditionally used however the courts also have consideration for factors such as the integration into the business and the payment of wages etc. Then the second thing is that the employee had to be acting within the scope of his employment when the all edged wrongdoing took place. The courts have two tests that they use for this, - implied authority test - close connection test They use them interchangeably and without any real justification for why. The implied authority test is the more limited of the two and relates to acts which the employee could have considered to be delegated to him / acts he was authorised to do. Employer won't be liable for an intentional wrong such as in Lawlor where the lorry driver kidnapped a girl during work or in Farry where the employee restrained someone at a train station to get their ticket from them - liable here as thought he would be required do so whatever to get the ticket. Then the second test, close-connection test, more like the real workplace. Where the act done is something which can be considered to be part of the job or is reasonably incidental to it then it will be considered as part of the course of employment - regardless of whether or not the employee was allowed to do it. Eg. In Poland, his plaintiffs hand as he believed that he was acting stealing - employer vicarious liable here. Even where expressly prohibited from doing an act - he may be held to be VL. In Iqbal - a bus conductor was not VL where a bus conductor moved a bus because his job was to collect tickets not drive buses compared with Limpis where a bus driver raced a bus down road - VL. In te context of intentional wrongs such as abuse or assault, the Employer won't be held to be VL where the act is considered beyond the scope of the employees authority as it would be unfair to impose liability on the employer where the employee had deliberately acted against his employers wishes. Daniels - bouncer chased him down street - liable for this but not for the bouncer fracturing his skull. Mohamud v. Morrison - followed customer to car park, racist attack etc not liable just because his job was to work with customers not enough to connect that and the attack Abuse cases - liability won't be founded. UK - lister case - Bazley - canada both found employers of school wardens in boarding schools VL for sexual assault In Doe - church held VL In Ireland - Delahunty v SEHB. not VL as the person abused was a visitor to the school O'keeffee v hickey - Harriman J rejected close connection test + canadian approach but Fennelly J approved it and said criminal acts shouldn't be excluded and may even be automatically imposed... So do we or don't we impose liability for sexual assaults?!
BatPateman wrote: » Whats the story with the General negligence Question in tort? the examiner reports arent illuminating. I.e. the Ocotber 2014 Q.6 about the stove ? and the April 14 Question about the dolphin. The March 14 Question about the brick wall... etc.
Paz-CCFC wrote: » Could anyone tell me the topics which came up for Constitutional October last, as well as the four case notes? Thanks.
jenspondolik wrote: » City says okeeffe approve close connection test no principle in excluding sex assault automatically from VL. I kind of get the sense there is scope then course and now close connection as a sub section. But if you apply what you've said you should be fine. The courts even use them interchangeable as long as u distinguish the areas. I've just covered land products and defamation. It'll be a long night. Is passing off tipped again?
amyeee wrote: » I reckon the March 14 question about the brick wall just requires a discussion of the elements of negligence e.g. duty of care, breach of the standard of care, causation. The stove and dolphin questions are headwreckers though, would love some clarity on these.
missindigo123 wrote: » Thanks a mill! I really hope that passing off comes up, I literally only know it because I'm addicted to McCanbridge bread haha!! I've trespass to person because it's not too difficult and short done ha and negligence and now this done! I'm thinking of leaving our defamation but it comes up loads! Ugh! And maybe leave out medical negligence too or just learn the nutshell !
