Apr 2024 ADMIN LAW

Question 1

1 Administrative law is restricted to the law regarding:

A Relations between individuals and state authorities, administrative bodies or tribunals
B Actions of any servant of government with legal justification
C Procedural, not substantive administrative issues
D All of the above.

Answer 1

D All of the above.

Question 2

The public element is assessed with regard to:

A	The source of the power being invoked
B	The nature of the power being invoked
C	Both of the above
D	Neither of the above

Answer 2

C Both of the above

Question 3

3 In Beirne v. Commissioner of An Garda Siochána, a private contract was:

A	Subject to judicial review
B	Not subject to JR as was a private issue not of public concern
C	Not subject to JR as Gardai have power to enter into private contracts
D	Not subject to JR as employment contracts are strictly private law

Answer 3

A Subject to judicial review

Question 4

4 In Geoghegan v. Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, Denham J laid out criteria, which were later adapted by Shanley J in Eoghan v. UCD, for assessing if a matter should be subject to JR. These included:

	i	Whether powers are pursuant to statute
	ii	Whether powers depend on legislative/governmental approval			
	iii	Whether matter is of particular and immediate public concern
A	i + iii
B	ii + iii
C	i + ii
D	i, ii + iii

Answer 4

D i, ii + iii

Question 5

5 According to State (Crothers) v. Kelly, where a decision would have been the same regardless that there was a breach of fair procedures, it will:

A	Stand as the costs and time wasted would make a JR unjustifiable
B	Stand as the JR would not change the decision
C	Be quashed as the Court is not concerned with changing decision, just with upholding principles
D	Be quashed as fair procedures are of paramount consideration

Answer 5

D Be quashed as fair procedures are of paramount consideration

Question 6

6 The Supreme Court required that ‘a person be furnished with a copy of the evidence reflecting on his good name, be allowed to cross-examine, be allowed to give rebuttal evidence, and be permitted to address his accusers in his own defence’ in the case of

A	Flanagan v. UCD [1988] IR 724
B	Eoghan v. UCD [1996] 1 IR 390
C	Re Haughey [1971] IR 217
D	State (Crothers) v. Kelly 1978 ILRM 167

Answer 6

C Re Haughey [1971] IR 217

Question 7

7 The following will have a bearing on whether or not there needs to be a broad range of procedural safeguards in place for decision-makers:

A	Whether a person’s good name is impugned
B	Whether their livelihood or property rights are endangered
C	Neither of the above
D	Both of the above

Answer 7

D Both of the above

Question 8

8 The minimum requirements of a decision are:

A	Opportunity to have representation
B	Opportunity to challenge the evidence by cross-examination
C	Opportunity to address the decision makers, and to present a rebuttal
D	Opportunity to receive notice of decision, to respond

Answer 8

D Opportunity to receive notice of decision, to respond

Question 9

9 The right to legal representation is not absolute, except in cases of:

A	A charge of plagiarism (Flanagan v. UCD)
B	Pupil suspension (State (Smullen) v. Duffy)
C	Disciplinary charge for Governor (State v. Governor of Portlaoise)
D	None of the above

Answer 9

A A charge of plagiarism (Flanagan v. UCD)

Question 10

10 The obligation to give reasons for an administrative decision is absolute:

A	According to State (Creedon) v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Trib
B	According to International Fishing Vessels v. Minister for Marine
C	According to neither of the above
D	It is not absolute according to McCormack v. Garda Complaints Board

Answer 10

D It is not absolute according to McCormack v. Garda Complaints Board

Question 11

11 The principle of nemo iudex in causa sua, enshrined in the field of judicial review, is particularly relevant with regard to:

A	The rule against bias
B	The scope of a judge’s jurisdiction
C	The scope of a judge’s ability to look behind the meaning of a statute
D	The doctrine of administrative unreasonableness

Answer 11

A The rule against bias

Question 12

12 According to Orange v. Director of Telecommunication Regulation, bias is evidenced by:

A	Proved, actual bias
B	Presumed personal bias, where a personal interest is shown to exist
C	Apparent bias where a reasonable person might presume a bias
D	All of the above

Answer 12

D All of the above

Question 13

13 If there is a relationship with one of the parties and the decision maker:

A	It is irrelevant, unless it relates specifically to the issue at hand
B	Then that is a prima facie ground for a JR
C	Then it is a matter for the decision maker to assess by themselves
D	It is only relevant if the relationship is objected to

Answer 13

D It is only relevant if the relationship is objected to

Question 14

14 A prior connection of legal advisor and client is:

A	Sufficient for a declaration of objective bias
B	Insufficient to be called bias, it must be a long, recent & varied link
C	Insufficient for a declaration of subjective bias
D	Insufficient for a declaration of objective bias

Answer 14

B Insufficient to be called bias, it must be a long, recent & varied link

Question 15

15 Bodies exercising an administrative function:

A	May not decide a matter in which they have an interest
B	May decide matters in which they have an interest
C	May decide matters, but only if they act fairly and properly
D	May decide matters, but only if impartial observers involved

Answer 15

C May decide matters, but only if they act fairly and properly

Question 16

16 The existence of alternative machinery to decide an issue is:

A	Important, but not critical in deciding if JR is an appropriate remedy
B	Critical
C	Of note, but not of the highest priority
D	Not important

Answer 16

A Important, but not critical in deciding if JR is an appropriate remedy

Question 17

17 The course of the hearing will be affected by the conduct of the decision-maker, and such conduct will be subject to scrutiny where it ‘gives rise in the mind of an unprejudiced observer to the suspicion that justice was not being done’ according to:

A	State (Hegarty) v. Winters
B	Flanagan v. UCD
C	McGrath v. Trustees of Maynooth College
D	O’Brien v. Bord na Mona

Answer 17

A State (Hegarty) v. Winters

Question 18

18 Ultra vires decisions, or those made without/in excess of jurisdiction:

A	Are paramount to the doctrine of administrative unreasonableness
B	Are subjugated to the doctrine of administrative unreasonableness
C	Were still capable of being upheld in State (Walshe) v. Murphy
D	All of the above

Answer 18

A Are paramount to the doctrine of administrative unreasonableness

Question 19

19 The interpretation of a legal definition to a particular set of facts is:

A	A matter for the decision maker & is thus a question of fact, subject to JR
B	Not a matter for the decision maker, is a question of law & is subject to JR
C	A matter for the courts, and is subject to JR
D	A matter for the courts, not subject to JR

Answer 19

B Not a matter for the decision maker, is a question of law & is subject to JR

Question 20

20 In Shannon Regional Fisheries Board v. An Bord Pleanála, the High Court stated that if a decision would always be allowed to stand if it was:

A	Rational, in light of the facts
B	Material to the facts
C	Reasonable, in light of the facts
D	All of the above

Answer 20

C Reasonable, in light of the facts

Question 21

21 The House of Lords case of Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission is authority for the proposition that:

A	Errors of law not on the face of the record are subject to JR
B	Administrative decisions based on legal error are in excess of jurisdiction
C	Errors of law are made in the absence of jurisdiction
D	All of the above

Answer 21

A Errors of law not on the face of the record are subject to JR

Question 22

22 The Irish Courts have adopted Anisminic in:

A	Stating that only errors of law on the face of the record are subject to JR
B	Stating that errors of law not on the face of the record are subject to JR
C	Stating that errors of law are made only where there is jurisdiction to do so
D	They have not adopted it, preferring to assess on the basis of jurisdiction

Answer 22

D They have not adopted it, preferring to assess on the basis of jurisdiction

Question 23

23 Errors within jurisdiction, i.e. where the body has misdirected itself as to the matters which can be taken into account when making its decision:

A	Will cause a decision to be set aside
B	Will cause to be set aside only where error not recorded on face of record
C	Will cause to be set aside only when in planning and development law
D	Will not cause to be set aside even if not recorded on face of record

Answer 23

B Will cause to be set aside only where error not recorded on face of record

Question 24

24 Killeen v. DPP decided that a District Court Judge was:

A	Entitled to consider circumstances outside the error in the warrant in 			refusing to send the defendants forward for trial
B	Not entitled to do so
C	Obliged to do so
D	Entitled to do so only where the defendants so applied

Answer 24

B Not entitled to do so

Question 25

25 State (Holland) v. Kennedy stated that a District Court Judge, having jurisdiction, could lose that jurisdiction by:

A	Falling into unconstitutionality
B	Breaching principles of natural justice
C	Breaching the bounds of that jurisdiction statute conferred upon him
D	All of the above

Answer 25

D All of the above

Question 26

26 An error of fact is one made within jurisdiction:

A	But is nevertheless susceptible to JR
B	Is not susceptible to JR
C	Is susceptible to JR only in circumstances where it is unreasonable
D	None of the above

Answer 26

B Is not susceptible to JR

Question 27

27 A.B. v. Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform is authority for the proposition that:

A	An error of fact producing an error of law is nonetheless not subject to JR
B	An error of fact producing an error of law is a misnomer
C	A fundamental error of fact producing an error of law is subject to JR  (“where the mistake of fact is so basic that it deprives adjudicator of jurisdiction”)
D	An error of fact is not a mistake of the decision-maker, & not subject to JR

Answer 27

C A fundamental error of fact producing an error of law is subject to JR

Question 28

28 The doctrine of administrative unreasonableness is particularly important in:

A	The field of planning and development
B	The field of immigration and asylum
C	Both of the above
D	Neither of the 	above

Answer 28

A The field of planning and development

Question 29

29 The doctrine of administrative unreasonableness (which is deemed a restrictive doctrine) has relevance:

A	Where unreasonableness is most evident in the decision
B	Where a decision is made within jurisdiction, but unreasonably
C	As an exceptional jurisdiction for the High Court’s JR power.
D	All of the above

Answer 29

C As an exceptional jurisdiction for the High Court’s JR power.

Question 30

30 In State (Keegan) v. Stardust Compensation Tribunal Henchy J gave:

A	Extended powers to the High Court to allow JR
B	Reduced powers to the High Court to allow JR
C	Extended leeway to decision-makers in relation to unreasonableness
D	Reduced leeway to decision-makers in relation to unreasonableness

Answer 30

C Extended leeway to decision-makers in relation to unreasonableness

Question 31

31 Unreasonableness is argued along with:

A	Lack of jurisdiction, or a breach of fair procedures
B	Lack of jurisdiction, breach of fair procedures or an error of law
C	Lack of jurisdiction, breach of fair procedures, or bad faith/bias
D	Lack of jurisdiction, breach of fair procedures, an error of law or bias

Answer 31

C Lack of jurisdiction, breach of fair procedures, or bad faith/bias

Question 32

32 In O’Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanála, the Supreme Court stated that:

A	The High Court could intervene where illegality was found
B	The High Court could intervene where materially unsupported decision 			made (not on the merits)
C	Both of the above
D	The High Court can only intervene on the basis of unreasonableness

Answer 32

B The High Court could intervene where materially unsupported decision made (not on the merits)

Question 33

33 The leeway in O’Keeffe is deemed:

A	Appropriate for all areas of Irish administrative law
B	Inappropriate for cases involving human rights and refugees
C	Inappropriate for cases involving planning and development issues
D	Inappropriate since it has been overruled in Lobe v. Minister for Justice

Answer 33

B Inappropriate for cases involving human rights and refugees

Question 34

34 The remedies available in Judicial Review are set out in Order 84 r18. These are:

A	Certiorari, mandamus and prohibition
B	Certiorari, mandamus, injunction and declaration
C	Certiorari, mandamus, injunction, declaration, quo warranto & prohibition
D	Certiorari, mandamus, injunction, declaration and damages

Answer 34

C Certiorari, mandamus, injunction, declaration, quo warranto & prohibition

Question 35

35 A claim for damages is made under O84 r 24(1) where:

A	The court finds there has been damage quantifiable in money terms
B	The court finds that the applicant would have been awarded damages
C	There is a claim for damages, & the court is satisfied they would have 			been awarded in a civil action
D	All of the above

Answer 35

C There is a claim for damages, & the court is satisfied they would have been awarded in a civil action

Question 36

36 What Order sets out the leave requirement in Judicial Review proceedings:

A. Order 84;
B. Order 84 Rule 12;
C. Order 84, Rule 20; or
D. Order 84, Rule 22.

Answer 36

C. Order 84, Rule 20;

Question 37

37 Judicial Review operates as a two-stage process. Which of the following correctly states what that process is:

a. Seek leave to apply for Judicial Review and then conduct the substantive hearing on the matter;
b. seek leave to apply for Judicial Review and if this is granted then the substantive hearing of the matter will occur;
c. seek leave to apply for Judicial Review, and if this is not granted appeal the decision; or
d. none of the above.

Answer 37

b. seek leave to apply for Judicial Review and if this is granted then the substantive hearing of the matter will occur;

Question 38

38 The seminal case of G –v- DPP established the following four criteria which must be fulfilled before someone can bring a judicial review case. Firstly, it must be established that the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter; secondly, it must be established the facts are su**fficient to support a stateable ground for the **form of relief sought; thirdly, that there is an arguable case in law; and fourthly, that judicial review is the only effective remedy or the most appropriate remedy. Which of the following is the fifth criteria:

a. That the applicant can give an undertaking as to costs if his application proves to be unsuccessful under Order 84, rule 21(1);
b. That there is a bona fide chance that the applicant will be successful in the substantive hearing of the matter under Order 84, rule 21(1);
c. That the application has been made immediately upon receipt of the decision sought to be Judicially reviewed under Order 84, rule 21(1); or
d. That the application has been made promptly or in any event within the three months or six months time limits under Order 84, rule 21(1).

Answer 38

d. That the application has been made promptly or in any event within the three months or six months time limits under Order 84, rule 21(1).

Question 39

39 What is the main objective behind the locus standi requirement?:

a. To establish that the applicant is not taking a frivolous claim;
b. To establish that the applicant has a genuine interest in the case;
c. To establish that the case is a real one as opposed to being a mere hypothetical one; or
d. To establish that the applicant is not seeking to fulfil a vendetta that he may have against the Respondent

Answer 39

c. To establish that the case is a real one as opposed to being a mere hypothetical one; or

Question 40

40 What must an applicant show in order to establish that he has the requisite locus standi?:

a. That he has a genuine interest in the case;
b. That he will be in some way affected by the decision;
c. That he will be in some way prejudiced by the decision; or
d. (B) and (C) above.

Answer 40

d. (B) and (C) above.

Question 41

41 In which of the following cases did the Court establish that to have locus standi the applicant must show that he or she had participated at an earlier stage in the decision making process and raised the legal issues or concerns at the time:

a. Mulcreevy –v- Minister for the Environment [2004] ILRM 419;
b. Lancefort Ltd. –v- An Bord Pleanala [1999] 2 IR 270;
c. G –v- DPP [1994] IR 1; or
d. O’Reilly –v- Cassidy [1995] ILRM 1.

Answer 41

a. Mulcreevy –v- Minister for the Environment [2004] ILRM 419;

Question 42

42 The locus standi test to challenge the constitutionality of a statute was established in the case of Cahill –v- Sutton. What is the test:

a. That he will be affected or prejudiced by the decision;
b. That he has a genuine bona fide interest in the case;
c. That he has suffered or is in imminent danger of suffering some injury or prejudice;
d. A) and (B) above.

Answer 42

a. That he will be affected or prejudiced by the decision

Question 43

43 In a recent case a company was incorporated specifically for the purposes of challenging a decision of a planning authority not to grant planning permission for a particular development in the city. It was argued that the company did not have the requisite standing to bring the case on the grounds that it had not participated in the planning process. However, the Supreme Court accepted that a company acting in a representative capacity may have the requisite standing. The Court went on to stated that a company should not be deprived of standing simply because it had not participated in the appeal process and had come into existence after the decision being challenged had been given.

a. Mulcreevy –v- Minister for the Environment [2004] ILRM 419;
b. Lancefort Ltd. –v- An Bord Pleanala [1999] 2 IR 270;
c. G –v- DPP [1994] IR 1; or
d. O’Reilly –v- Cassidy [1995] ILRM

Answer 43

b. Lancefort Ltd. –v- An Bord Pleanala [1999] 2 IR 270;

Question 44

44 In Mulcreevy –v- Minster for the Environment, the applicant here was a person whom the court found was not directly affected by the impugned decision. What were the reasons given by the Court in granting the applicant the requisite locus standi to take the case:

a. He had a genuine bona fide interest in the outcome of the case and there was no malice behind him taking the case;
b. He could give an undertaking as to damages and costs;
c. The grounds upon which he had taken the case were of substance;
d. (i) and (iii) above.

Answer 44

d. (i) and (iii) above.

Question 45

45 In relation to whether an applicant has an arguable case, what will the Court take into account in determining an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review as per O’Reilly –v- Cassidy:

a. Whether or not there is any lack of bona fides;
b. Whether there is an arguable case;
c. Whether there is a likelihood that the applicant will be successful in the end; or
d. All of the above.

Answer 45

b. Whether there is an arguable case;

Question 46

46 In what cases will the Courts impose a more onerous obligation on an Applicant in Judicial Review proceedings to show substantial grounds?:
a. in immigration matters;
b. in cases where the decision has been made on an error of law;
c. in planning matters;
d. both (i) and (iii) above

Answer 46

c. in planning matters;

Question 47

47 You are seeking leave to apply for Judicial Review in respect of a decision made by a public body. In examining the matter at leave stage, Judge Meldrew has reached a decision that he wishes to hear the Parties before making a decision. What are the consequences of such a decision?:
a. there are no consequences of this decision;
b. the applicant must prove that they have more than a good arguable case;
c. (A) and (B) above; or
d. None of the above.

Answer 47

c. (A) and (B) above

NB] Whilst this may seem ridiculous, the answer is actually (i) and (ii)

Question 48

48 Which of the following deals with the requisite time limits in a judicial review application?:
a. Order 84, rule 12;
b. Order 84, rule 21;
c. Order 84, rule 21 (1); or
d. Order 84, rule22 (1).

Answer 48

c. Order 84, rule 21 (1)

Order 84, Rule 21 (1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides that

Question 49

49 When does time stop ticking in respect of the time limits in a judicial review application?:
a. When the ex parte motion is made;
b. When the notice is served upon the other side;
c. When the applicant formed the bona fide intention to pursue the action;
d. (i) and (ii) above.

Answer 49

d. (i) and (ii) above.

Question 50

50 What are the required time limits in immigration matters?:
a. 28 days from the date of the impugned decision;
b. 14 days from the date of the impugned decision;
c. 10 days from the date of the impugned decision; or
d. 7 days from the date of the impugned decision.

Answer 50

b. 14 days from the date of the impugned decision;

Question 51

51 What are the required time limits in planning matters?:
a. 2 weeks from the date of the impugned decision;
b. 4 weeks from the date of the impugned decision;
c. 6 weeks from the date of the impugned decision; or
d. 8 weeks from the date of the impugned decision.

Answer 51

d. 8 weeks from the date of the impugned decision.

Question 52

52 What are the factors that will be taken into account by the Court in deciding whether or not to grant an extension of time as per the decision of Denham J in De Roiste –v- Minister for Defence [2001] 2 ILRM 241?:
a. the conduct of the Parties;
b. the nature of the impugned decision;
c. the effect of the impugned decision on both Parties and on Third Parties; or
All of the above.

Answer 52

All of the above

[NB] public policy is also a factor that will be taken into account by t

Question 53

53 What does Order 84, rule 20(5) state?:
a. where leave is sought for an order quashing any decision which is subject to appeal and time is limited for bringing the appeal, the Court may adjourn the leave application until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired;
b. where leave is sought for an order quashing any decision which a party may appeal, the Court may adjourn the leave application until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired;
c. leave may not be sought for an order quashing any decision which is subject to appeal until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired; or
d. leave may be sought for an order quashing any decision which is subject to appeal, but it is not necessary for the Court to adjourn the leave application until the appeal is determined.

Answer 53

a. where leave is sought for an order quashing any decision which is subject to appeal and time is limited for bringing the appeal, the Court may adjourn the leave application until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired;

Question 54

54 Do the Court have any kind of discretion as to whether or not leave to bring judicial review proceedings should be allowed where all other remedies have not been exhausted?:
a. no;
b. Yes, but only in limited circumstances;
c. Yes, but it a question of justice as to whether or not this discretion should be exercised; or
d. Both (ii) and (iii) above.

Answer 54

c. Yes, but it a question of justice as to whether or not this discretion should be exercised;

Question 55

55 What was taken into account by the Court (Denham J) in the case of Stefan –v- Minister for Justice [2001] 4 IR 203, in exercising its discretion regarding the availability of alternative remedies?:
a. The Court, in allowing the applicant leave to appeal stated that where there is a breach of fair procedure, there was no need to avail of an alternative remedy, as a fair appeal does not cure an unfair hearing;
b. Where the decision was made outside of the decision maker’s jurisdiction, taking into account the conduct of the applicant, the Court allowed leave to apply for judicial review;
c. The Court in this case refused the appeal on the basis that the appeal process is an adequate way to cure the defects of the original hearing; or
d. The Court refused leave to appeal on the basis that it was not satisfied with the purpose for which certiorari was sought. The Court went on to state that leave should only be granted where the purpose for which certiorari was sought was genuine, fitting with the interests of justice.

Answer 55

a. The Court, in allowing the applicant leave to appeal stated that where there is a breach of fair procedure, there was no need to avail of an alternative remedy, as a fair appeal does not cure an unfair hearing;

Question 56

56 Under what circumstances would a notice Party be joined to Judicial Review Proceedings?:
a. any party who has been affected by the Proceedings;
b. any party who has been affected by the Proceedings, against whom relief is sought;
c. any party who has been affected by the Proceedings, against whom relief is not sought; or
d. any party who has been affected by the Proceedings, against whom relief may be sought depending on the outcome of the proceedings.

Answer 56

C. any party who has been affected by the Proceedings, against whom relief is not sought;

Question 57

57 The procedure involved in Judicial Review is as follows:
i. Obtain leave to bring the JR proceedings through ex parte application;
ii. Application is grounded upon a statement of grounds and an affidavit;
iii. The documents are filed in the Central Office and it will get a record no.;
iv. Move the application on a Monday Morning in the ex parte Judicial Review list
v. If the matter is urgent, you have two options:
1. If during the week, make the application before the Judge in charge of the Judicial Review list; or
2. If during the vacation, make the application before the Duty Judge.

When would you move the application?
a. During the Thursday morning call over;
b. On any day during the week as long as it is before the Judge in charge of the Judicial Review list;
c. On a Monday morning on the ex parte judicial review list; or
d. All/any of the above.

Answer 57

c. On a Monday morning on the ex parte judicial review list

Question 58

58 There are essential differences between the Judicial Review process for Planning and immigration matters as opposed to the general JR application. Which of the following is not one of these differences:
a. the application should be made on notice to the Respondents/any other party who have a particular involvement in the case;
b. the applicant must show substantial grounds as opposed to an arguable case;
c. as the leave stage is heard on notice, it involves greater amounts of arguments from either party; or
d. regardless of the fact that the leave stage is heard on notice, it involves the same amount of argument from the Applicant (i.e.) an arguable case.

Answer 58

d. regardless of the fact that the leave stage is heard on notice, it involves the same amount of argument from the Applicant (i.e.) an arguable case.

Question 59

59 Will the Judicial Review procedure operate as a stay on the proceedings until the matter has been determined?:
a. yes;
b. yes, but only where the relief sought is certiorari;
c. Yes, but only where the Court so directs;
d. Yes, but only where the relief sought is prohibition and certiorari and only where the Court so directs.

Answer 59

d. Yes, but only where the relief sought is prohibition and certiorari and only where the Court so directs.

Question 60

60 The High Court have an inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order granting leave to institute Judicial Review proceedings. When is this done?:

a. In any case where the Court is under the opinion that the circumstances of the case warrant such an action;
b. Only in the most limited of circumstances;
c. Only where some element of fraud is proved;
d. None of the above.

Answer 60

b. Only in the most limited of circumstances;

Question 61

61 What was the decision of the Court in the case of Gordon –v- DPP:?

a. there was no difference in the standard of proof which needs be asserted by an applicant seeking to set aside an order than one seeking leave to apply for judicial review;
b. there was a difference in the standard of proof which needs be asserts by an applicant seeking to set aside an order than one seeking leave to apply for judicial review, in that the latter had a higher standard to prove;
c. the only difference as regards proof that a party seeking to have an order set aside has to prove is that there is some element of injustice suffered by them when leave to apply for judicial review was granted; or
d. there was a difference in the standard of proof which needs be asserted by an applicant seeking to set aside an order, in that he must show that leave should never have been granted whereas the original applicant need only show that he has an arguable case.

Answer 61

d. there was a difference in the standard of proof which needs be asserted by an applicant seeking to set aside an order, in that he must show that leave should never have been granted whereas the original applicant need only show that he has an arguable case.

Question 62

62 Judge Meldrew has granted Leave to apply but has directed that the action should proceed by way of Plenary Summons pursuant to Order 84, rule 22(1) instead of by the normal notice of motion. What is the significance of this?:

a. there is no material significance to this, it is merely a matter of Judicial preference;
b. the plenary summons procedure is only used where the legal issues in the case are extremely complex;
c. the plenary summons procedure is only used where the factual issues in the case are extremely complex;
d. both (B) and (C) above.

Answer 62

d. both (B) and (C) above

Question 63

As leave is granted on an ex parte basis, the relevant documents (i.e.) the motion or summons, a copy of the order granting leave, the statement of grounds and the verifying affidavit, have to be served upon the Respondent. Within what time frame should this be done?:

a. within 14 days or within such time as the Court may direct;
b. within 28 days or within such time as the Court may direct;
c. within 2 months or within such time as the Court may direct; or
d. within such time as the Court may direct.

Answer 63

a. within 14 days or within such time as the Court may direct;

Question 64

64 Leave has been granted and a return date has been specified. What is done on this return date?:

a. it is the date when the full matter is heard;
b. it is the date when the Parties exchange their documents;
c. it is the date when the Parties inform the Judge of the main issues in the case and to suggest time limits for the exchange of the pre-trial documents; or
d. it is the date when the time frame for the full hearing is set.

Answer 64

c. it is the date when the Parties inform the Judge of the main issues in the case and to suggest time limits for the exchange of the pre-trial documents;

Question 65

65 When should the written submissions be exchanged between the Parties?:

a. 7 days before the hearing of the matter unless the Court dispenses with this requirement;
b. 14 days before the hearing of the matter unless the Court dispenses with this requirement;
c. 7 days after the return date unless the Court dispenses with this requirement; or
d. 14 days after the return date unless the Court dispenses with this requirement.

Answer 65

a. 7 days before the hearing of the matter unless the Court dispenses with this requirement;

Question 66

66 What is the purpose of the Thursday call-over?:

a. to ascertain the date of the full hearing of the matter;
b. to ascertain if the case is still proceeding;
c. to ascertain if the written submissions have been filed;
d. both (ii) and (iii) above.

Answer 66

d. both (ii) and (iii) above.

Question 67

67 You have failed to turn up at a Thursday call-over when one of your client’s case was mentioned. What is the significance of this for your Client?:

a. nothing, the matter remains in being;
b. the hearing date will be vacated but the matter remains in being;
c. the case is struck out;
d. your client will suffer costs penalties but the matter will remain in being.

Answer 67

c. the case is struck out;

APPLICATOIN CAN BE MADE TO REENTER

Question 68

68 Which Order allows for interlocutory applications to be made in Judicial Review proceedings?:
a. Order 84, rule 5;
b. Order 84, rule 15;
c. Order 84, rule 25; or
d. Order 84, rule 35.

Answer 68

c. Order 84, rule 25