Discuss a recent family law case (from the last 12 months) that interested you.

Why do you believe you will make a good barrister? In your answer, please identify any relevant experiences or skills that you believe may help you in your career (200 words)

“The age of majority should be reduced to 16”. Please make an argument for or against this proposition. (350 words)

What is the greatest challenge you have faced so far, and how you overcame it? (200 words)

Discuss a recent family law case (from the last 12 months) that interested you. (200 words)

Which family law case decided in the last 12 months do you most disagree with and why? (200 words)

How would your friends describe you? (lively personality etc, but also very firm and opinionated in certain matters) (200 words)

Please describe what relevant skills and/or experience you poses which make you suitable for a career at the Family Bar? (200 words)

Why are you interested in family law? (300 words)

Was Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448 a decade defining case or a missed opportunity? (250 words)

Which skills and characteristics are the hallmarks of a good advocate, and which of these do you and don’t you possess? (250 words)

What is the most important characteristic for a barrister to possess? (300 words)

What will you find the most difficult aspect of pupillage? (300 words)

Please give details of your advocacy and public speaking experience. (presentations in front of the whole school, mooting, debating etc) (100 words)

Explain and critically analyse the right to education, considering in particular the implications of this right for members of minority groups and the issues raised by this quotation.

1. “Despite the expectation that a human rights court will enhance the protection provided for the rights of those who are at the margin of society and are subject to systematic discriminatory policies, the article argues that the Court fails to recognise Roma children’s status as human rights-holders and thus perpetuates their double marginality—as children and as Roma.”
Noam Peleg, “Marginalisation by the Court: The Case of Roma Children and the European Court of Human Rights” (2018) 18(1) Human Rights Law Review 111 at p. 111.

Explain and critically analyse the right to education, considering in particular the implications of this right for members of minority groups and the issues raised by this quotation.
Suggested starting points
We recommend reading and making notes on these sources as a starting point. It’s still essential to demonstrate your capacity for independent research, by using academic books and law journal articles (available online from Lexis, Westlaw, HeinOnline and Law Trove, as well as in the Law Library).
Noam Peleg, “Marginalisation by the Court: The Case of Roma Children and the European Court of Human Rights” (2018) 18(1) Human Rights Law Review 111 (available from Lexis Library)
DH v Czech Republic (2008) 47 European Human Rights Reports 3
Catherine J van de Heyning “Is it still a sin to kill a mockingbird? Remedying factual inequalities through positive action – what can be learned from the US Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights case law” [2008] European Human Rights Law Review 376 (available from Westlaw)

2. “Most vaccines have been applied in and reserved for developed and high income countries, whereas vaccination in many least developed and developing countries has not even started. This situation not only represents a discrimination in the right to access to vaccination at the global level but also undermines progress on achieving Sustainable Development Goals”
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Statement on Universal Affordable Vaccination against Coronavirus Disease COVID-19, International Cooperation and Intellectual Property” (2021) 10 International Human Rights Law Review 180, para 1
Explain and critically analyse the right to health, considering in particular the implications of this right for access to vaccination against Covid-19 in low-income countries and taking into account the issues raised by this quotation.

Read the Affordable Care Act. Explain

1. Read the case Roe v. Wade and don’t know where to start. Explain to me – in step by step instructions – at least two different ways to find that case.
2. Read the Affordable Care Act. Explain to me – in step by step instructions – at least three different places that I can go to find and read the Affordable Care Act.

What is the importance of exculpatory evidence during trial?

Discerning relevant evidence is an important government function. The prosecution has the duty to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense in criminal prosecutions.
Assignment Guidelines
• Address the following in 2-3 pages: o Brief the following cases: ■ Brady v. Maryland ■ Giglio v. United States o Your case briefs should follow the format below: ■ Title: Title of the selected case ■ Facts: Summary of the events, court timeline, evidence, and so forth ■ Issues: Issues that were present in this case ■ Decisions: The court’s decision and the conclusion to the case ■ Reasoning: The rationale behind the final decision ■ Dissenting opinions: Any dissenting opinions, and an explanation of what they were and why they were raised o Address the following questions: ■ What is relevant evidence? Explain in detail. ■ What is exculpatory evidence? Explain in detail. ■ What is the importance of exculpatory evidence during trial? ■ Read and discuss Brady v.
h • Home Degree Connect Financial Aid More

Analyze the decisions of courts and their way of reasoning.

The case brief enables you to develop fundamental legal skills to analyze the decisions of courts and their way of reasoning. Case Briefing is a fundamental skill to understand the legal doctrines which sustain legal decision making. The Case Brief enables you to learn how to synthesize the main aspects of legal cases which are an essential tool to learn international normative ideas.

Shareholders cannot effectively enforce directors’ breaches of duty in the UK. Discuss.

1. Projects Plc is a property development company. It has four shareholders. Joan owns 60% of the company’s shares. David, who founded the company with Joan, still owns 16%. Simon, owns 12%. Tessa owns the remaining 12%.

The company has four directors: Joan, Simon, Tessa and Wendy. Tessa is a qualified surveyor. Each of the directors has a 5-year service contract.

Six months ago, Simon, Tessa and Wendy decided that the company would henceforth operate in a more environmentally friendly way. They changed the company’s electricity supplier to one that provides only renewable-energy. Because this electricity is more expensive, Joan estimates this has reduced the company’s profits by £30,000 per year.

Three months ago, Simon and Tessa learnt about some land that was coming up for auction. Tessa drove to the land, looked at it through her car window for 5 minutes, and decided it would make an ideal site on which to build a factory. She and Simon attended the auction and bought the land for the company for £110,000. Unfortunately, because of problems regarding access to the land, it cannot be used for the intended purpose, and is worth only £50,000.

At the end of the auction, when almost everyone had left, a vacant warehouse came up for sale. Simon asked Tessa if he could buy this warehouse for himself. She agreed he could. Simon then bought the warehouse, with a winning bid of £40,000. He is now proposing to sell this warehouse to Projects Plc for £90,000. Joan accepts the warehouse is worth £90,000, but says that Simon should have bought it for the company (and not for himself) when he was at the auction.

Joan wants a shareholders’ meeting to take place, and she wants to use this meeting to prevent the company buying Simon’s warehouse and also to remove Simon and Tessa as directors. It is not known whether David will attend the meeting or, if he does, how he will vote.

Advise Joan:

a) whether she can use the shareholders’ meeting to achieve her wishes. Would your answer be any different if Simon were selling the warehouse to the company for £120,000 (again, assuming the warehouse were worth that amount); and

b) whether any of the directors have breached their duties to the company.

AND

2. Shareholders cannot effectively enforce directors’ breaches of duty in the UK.

Discuss.