I agree, I know some people will hate me for saying this, but it was the fairest tort paper I've seen in ages. There is usually some question on an obscure niche area or a problem question designed to catch you out. As far as I can tell, neither happened today. I think (although I haven't looked at it since) that that question was purely nuisance. I did the psychiatric one too, just prattled on about nervous shock and infliction of emotional distress (very little on that) Defamation Q was grand Re: Defences. I thought there was a lot going on in Q7 (Bertie) All in all a fine paper
On Oct 13, 6:07 pm, Perdy22 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi hows it going? > I thought it was a fair paper to be honest. I sat it last year too and > I though it was much tougher. What questions did you do? Can you > clarify for me if the nuisance question was only about nuisance or did > I miss any other issue in it? In relation to the psychaitric question. > Any ideas on what was relevant. I put in the issues on non- > consequential psychaitric injury and mental distress accompanied by a > physical injury. I used cases like fletcher, mullaly, kelly, alcock, > etc. Please tell me that I'm right in these issues!!!!!!!! I rushed > the 5th question which for me was on trespass defences. I though the > defamation question was ok, alot of writing for it though. In general > I was happy enough with it. How about you? > > On Oct 13, 2:49 pm, padraig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Any thoughts on the paper?? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
