Is it not TD v Min for Ed?Doesnt matter anyay. It's to do with Sep of Powers.Only Oireachtas can decide what to do with State's money (Art11).In this case the HC orderes a special psychiatric facilty or something to be built for a young fella as no such facility existed in the country.SC on appeal overturned that order saying it was't for the judiciary to direct the Oir on how to spend State's money.
Re Solicitor's Act goes hand in hand with McDonald v Bord na gCon.If you have to mention one,chances are the other is also relevant.They're to do with Art37 (where a body other than a court has made a decision that you don't agree with and it affects your rights,or so you think)This Art allows ltd fnctns of a judicial nature be carried out by non courts... McDonald-First of all it must be ascertained if the body was exercising a judicial fnctn in the first place:Was body dealing with a dispute as to the existence of legal rights/obligations?; Does its decision impose legal duties/penalties?;Is its decision final?;Is the State bound to enforce its decision?;Is the fnctn one traditionally carried out by a court in Irl? If these are answered "Yes", proceed to Re Solicitors Act... Now that we know the body was exercising a jusicial fnctn,Art 37 says this is only allowable by a non court once the decision was not related to criminal matters (straightforward) and it must be limited inits effect. To find out if the decision is ltd in its effect, ask "does the decision have a most profound and far reaching effect affecting the life,liberty,fortune or reputation of the person against whom it was directed" If the answer to this is "Yes" then the action by the body who made that decision was unconst in breach of Art 37 (It was exercising a judicial fnctn ,which is allowed (McDonald), but it wasn't of a ltd nature) Easy! On Oct 1, 10:35 pm, "Keane C.J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > td v minister for justice brought a number of ground breaking > judgments on resource based issues to a halt as they identified socio > economic rights??that correct??? > > also re solicitors act case regarding limited judicial function > confuses me ?? > > would appreciate if one could expand on the following issues. > > cheers closer to exam the more confused im getting!! > > On Sep 29, 5:44 pm, "Keane C.J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > wats up all, im doing all the griffith topics in the manual minus, > > preamble, president, nation,thing is there is so much in it im worried > > il forget cases but i got 45 in last exam which i crammed for and am > > thinkin its sort of a waffley subject what do u all think?? any > > predictions on what might come up??- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
