cheers gaffer yes td v minister to education, the cramming is getting to me!
On Oct 2, 9:25 am, the gaffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
