nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

RandolphEsq

Equity tomorrow. What are people predicting/hoping for with injunctions. I would like some sort of essay on Campus Oil principles and deviation from them or an essay on Anton Piller, Marevas.

Find more posts tagged with

fe1 preparation

fe1's

Quick Links

Comments

Troels Hartmann

missindigo123 wrote: »

I think this is the case where a lesbian couple wanted their marriage recognised in the courts, they relied upon changing attitudes towards marriage. Rejected because the court adopted a historical approach to the word marriage and said that only a constitution could change that! It's no overly relevant I don't think!

Gillian and zappone also rejected because the discrimination against them was justified by A 41 and marriage being between a man and a woman

lawlols

tiger_cub wrote: »

What is the fried chicken case? can't find it in my manual.
*panicking*

John grace fried chicken case and mcGowan case recently 2011 & 2013 ( i think) basically randomers could make suggestions to the labour commission and it would become law. both held really old labour law Acts were unconst. Instead of saying minister acted ultra vires so maybe law is now using the principles and policies test (cityview press v an co) more strictly now.

FE1 student

tiger_cub wrote: »

What is the fried chicken case? can't find it in my manual.
*panicking*

Non delegation doctrine.

tiger_cub

Troels Hartmann wrote: »

Looks like City Colleges didn't produce (publicly at least) any night before notes this time? That's annoying because I found the Tort and Equity ones very helpful previously

Also, I hope I'm not the only person who giggles a little bit every time I think of the "John Grace Fried Chicken Ltd" case?! Every time I think of why on earth someone would call a company that, even if it is for a chipper!!

Anyway sorry, irrelevant I know. Perhaps I'm just going Ga-Ga from it all and looking for some amusement

What is the fried chicken case? can't find it in my manual.
*panicking*

Daryl Strawberry

Anyone have any key helpful words/phrases to look out for in identifying a topic that's part of a question that may not be immediately obvious? I always seem to miss the sneaky ones

FE1 student

Can anyone confirm in the Demache v Dpp case, did he get off due to unconstitutional warrant. Thinking it may be a possible casenote.

lawlols

Anybody know if a licence is a property right or not?! My notes keep contradicting! Help!! I know it is subject to implied condition that the conditions can be changed but is a licence a property right?!??!! (Panic)

missindigo123

jenspondolik wrote: »

Could someone give me a summary on relevance is zappone if its necessary not in book but on nbns

I think this is the case where a lesbian couple wanted their marriage recognised in the courts, they relied upon changing attitudes towards marriage. Rejected because the court adopted a historical approach to the word marriage and said that only a constitution could change that! It's no overly relevant I don't think!

lawlols

jenspondolik wrote: »

Could someone give me a summary on relevance is zappone if its necessary not in book but on nbns

Zappone lesbian couple got married in Canada wanted it recognised here buy courts used historical approach so A41 marriage is between a biological man and biological woman only.

jenspondolik

Could someone give me a summary on relevance is zappone if its necessary not in book but on nbns

dandadub

Thanks a mil jenspondolik and s12b!

Good luck to everyone (constitutional is a nightmare)

FE1 student

jenspondolik wrote: »

If you've heard the fifty shades of grey cork style on YouTube she says at the end that they'll go to John graces for a snack box ha so I can't forget it. Keep thinking putting flesh on the bones and you'll remember its principles and policies

Keep them coming anything to keep it in the head for three hours. I only have constitution and EU and that's me done with this learn it all of and write it like you have not learnt it off rubbish !!!

jenspondolik

Troels Hartmann wrote: »

Looks like City Colleges didn't produce (publicly at least) any night before notes this time? That's annoying because I found the Tort and Equity ones very helpful previously

Also, I hope I'm not the only person who giggles a little bit every time I think of the "John Grace Fried Chicken Ltd" case?! Every time I think of why on earth someone would call a company that, even if it is for a chipper!!

Anyway sorry, irrelevant I know. Perhaps I'm just going Ga-Ga from it all and looking for some amusement

If you've heard the fifty shades of grey cork style on YouTube she says at the end that they'll go to John graces for a snack box ha so I can't forget it. Keep thinking putting flesh on the bones and you'll remember its principles and policies

southcounty

Troels Hartmann wrote: »

Looks like City Colleges didn't produce (publicly at least) any night before notes this time? That's annoying because I found the Tort and Equity ones very helpful previously

Also, I hope I'm not the only person who giggles a little bit every time I think of the "John Grace Fried Chicken Ltd" case?! Every time I think of why on earth someone would call a company that, even if it is for a chipper!!

Anyway sorry, irrelevant I know. Perhaps I'm just going Ga-Ga from it all and looking for some amusement

There's a fried chicken place called John Graces in Cork lol

S12b

dandadub wrote: »

Anyone know the difference between Tuohy and Heaney? I can't find it anywhere in the books/manuals

Tuohy - more deferential - "so contrary to reason and fairness as to constitute an unjust attack"

Heaney - more interventionist - limitation must be rationally connected to objective, impair the right as little as possible and the effects on the right must be proportional to the objective. Heaney can also be applied in a more deferential manner robbing it of its interventionist character and rendering it essentially the same as Tuohy.

jenspondolik

dandadub wrote: »

Anyone know the difference between Tuohy and Heaney? I can't find it anywhere in the books/manuals

Limitation on ones rights must be proportionate in pursuing legislative objectives.

Heaney -the objective of the impugned provision must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right. The means chosen to pass a proportionality test must be
1 rationally connected to the objective and not arbitrary unfair or based on irrational considerations
2 impairs the right as little as possible
3 such that their effects are proportional to the objective

Touhy - oireacras engaged in balancing function the role of the courts is not to impose their view of correct balance rather they will determine from an objective stance whether balance contained in the legislation is SO CONTRART TO REASON AND FAIRNESS AS TO BE AN UNJUST ATTACK ON SOMONES CONSTIT. RIGHTS.

heaney is more rigourous but applied inconsistently.

dandadub

Anyone know the difference between Tuohy and Heaney? I can't find it anywhere in the books/manuals

Troels Hartmann

Looks like City Colleges didn't produce (publicly at least) any night before notes this time? That's annoying because I found the Tort and Equity ones very helpful previously

Also, I hope I'm not the only person who giggles a little bit every time I think of the "John Grace Fried Chicken Ltd" case?! Every time I think of why on earth someone would call a company that, even if it is for a chipper!!

Anyway sorry, irrelevant I know. Perhaps I'm just going Ga-Ga from it all and looking for some amusement

amyeee

I know most are in constitutional mode but if anyone could tell me what came up on the equity exams in 2012 and 2013 I'd be most grateful.

jenspondolik

Arcturus2112 wrote: »

Article 38.1 seems huge but just reduce it to a few cases under each of the sub headings, because it will most likely appear as a problem question, so you only need to be able to spot the issue and apply a couple of cases.

Thanks I'm just speed reading manual and hope stuff sticks may as well sit it anyways.

Arcturus2112

jenspondolik wrote: »

Cheers thanks. Its so massive I don't know how I'll manage it but I'll throw it on to the list

Article 38.1 seems huge but just reduce it to a few cases under each of the sub headings, because it will most likely appear as a problem question, so you only need to be able to spot the issue and apply a couple of cases.

jenspondolik

Arcturus2112 wrote: »

I think you would definitely need Art 38.1 Due Course of Law on there - it didn't come up last time. Also, apparently he quite likes Property Rights and that also didn't come up last time.

Cheers thanks. Its so massive I don't know how I'll manage it but I'll throw it on to the list

Arcturus2112

jenspondolik wrote: »

What are people covering for constitutional?
Was thinking

Sop
Fair procedures reasons etc
Judicial review
Findings
Privacy
Foe

What else? Itll be a splash and dash job

I think you would definitely need Art 38.1 Due Course of Law on there - it didn't come up last time. Also, apparently he quite likes Property Rights and that also didn't come up last time.

jenspondolik

What are people covering for constitutional?
Was thinking

Sop
Fair procedures reasons etc
Judicial review
Findings
Privacy
Foe

What else? Itll be a splash and dash job

missindigo123

MissM89 wrote: »

Can anyone give me a brief summary of what happened in TD v Minister for Education in relation to socio-economic rights? I know that they were obviously not given the mandatory relief they were seeking but why? Also, how is this case differentiated from Sinnott? Any help much appreciated, my head is sore from thinking about Constitutional all day!

So my understanding is that the courts tend not to entertain cases of socio-economic rights (O'reilly v Limerick etc) because of the seperation of powers - they courts leave socio economic rights to the legislature because they have better knowledge about what the country can afford etc.

In relation to education things are a little more difficult because the constitution says that children have a right to education.

Parents then seem to feel that this means that they have a right to the standard of education that they deem for however it's only a reasonable standard of education that needs to be provided by the courts.

In Sinnott the case concerned an adult plaintiff and his family said he should be entitled to primary education as guaranteed by the constitution. Court said no.

In TD it was pretty much the same issue but the courts said that they must refrain from granting a mandatory order compelling the government to do something unless there has been a serious breach of a right because of te SOP Doctrine etc!

MissM89

Can anyone give me a brief summary of what happened in TD v Minister for Education in relation to socio-economic rights? I know that they were obviously not given the mandatory relief they were seeking but why? Also, how is this case differentiated from Sinnott? Any help much appreciated, my head is sore from thinking about Constitutional all day!

FE1 student

Did City not do night before notes for this sitting?

prior212

Anyone with predictions for Equity? Bankers or tips etc

missindigo123

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

What would be the bare minimum to know for constitutional, I'm at a loss here, can't cope! Can anyone shed some light on the 8 topics that came up!

Article 38 - due course of law

Know your seperation of powers - and then the names principles like proportionality and the proportionality test because you can use that it almost any situation which involves a right being infringed

Apparently courts is tipped but not sure and after tort I wouldn't dream of predicting ha!

Maybe abortion given the situation this year

Socio-economic rights - basically don't exists, education only one granted in the constitution - only primary education an not a particular type... For all other socio economic rights u can say courts won't get involved as deference to the legislature

Judicial review (know the locus standi, moot was and justifiability) & principles and policies tests ( read the journal and the ecstacy articles sums up the principles and policies haha)

Constitutional interpretation hasn't been on in a while either have unenumerated rights. Even learn of sample essays for these if stuck!

Maybe family too!

Ha sorry basically said the whole book !

Ashashi

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

Thanks so much!
The defective products was a strange question, Questions 3 and 4 were dodge!

Question 3 was okay I thpugh, no need to prove negligence but had to discuss whether his actions contributed to the injury (Barnett, Bonnington, McGee) and then about whether her meltdown and disposal of her life belongings (drama queen or what?) was a novus actus. And then just some discussion in remoteness of damages.

The defective product was odd because it was the importer but the importer can be the producer for the purposes of the legislation is what I said and then talked about common law negligence for good measure. Probably way off but any who!