FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

law86

law86 wrote: »

Apparently abortion is never on the exam.

Apologies for the misleading information, and thanks Brian.

brian__foley

Pat.Kenny wrote: »

Hey Brian,

Any other topical issues you think might be worth keeping in mind aswell? Thanks

Subject to the caveat that I have no idea when the exams are written, some things of current interest involve forcing by-elections and the separation of powers, the general constitutionality of aspects of NAMA viz third party rights, de-regulation and property rights, data protection/privacy issues, same-sex partnership/marriage etc. I assume you'll all be tested in the real ration of T.D. again given its featuring in every single exam report and people seem to be making silly mistakes every time.

Then again, the exam could have been written when, say, the examiner is doing a rake load of undergraduate essays on natural law and it may simply have been on his mind at that time. You don't really know, but looking backwards over the papers, if you were somewhat familiar with what is going on around in a contemporaneous sense, you would have been rewarded.

brian__foley

law86 wrote: »

Apologies for the misleading information, and thanks Brian.

It wasn't misleading...But just because something hasn't ever been on the exam before, doesn't mean it won't be in the future especially when its "current" in a sense.

LiamMc26

page1 wrote: »

Im the same, im 12 weeks pregnant on my third baby and absolutely dying with morning (all day) sickness and exhausted tired. These are my last 2 and i thought id be all motivated to get them over with but i cant concentrate.


LiamMc26
q1 - seperation of powers
q2 - a)fundamental rights or b) art 15 public right of access to docs
q3 - art 230 annulment action
q4 - case notes van gend en loos,marshall,grzelczyk,airtours,atlmark,kobler
q5 - direct effect and MS liability
q6 - FMG/FOE
q7 - FMW
q8 - competition

Hi

Thanks for the reply page 1 but they are the EU topics I think and I was looking for the Company ones.
Could someone please post the topics that came up on the March 2010 sitting of company? 8 days to go for me - squeaky bum time!

Pat.Kenny

brian__foley wrote: »

Subject to the caveat that I have no idea when the exams are written, some things of current interest involve forcing by-elections and the separation of powers, the general constitutionality of aspects of NAMA viz third party rights, de-regulation and property rights, data protection/privacy issues, same-sex partnership/marriage etc. I assume you'll all be tested in the real ration of T.D. again given its featuring in every single exam report and people seem to be making silly mistakes every time.

Then again, the exam could have been written when, say, the examiner is doing a rake load of undergraduate essays on natural law and it may simply have been on his mind at that time. You don't really know, but looking backwards over the papers, if you were somewhat familiar with what is going on around in a contemporaneous sense, you would have been rewarded.

Thanks for that Brian.

I also wanted to ask what you think are the key issues and best approach when dealing with Sinnott and T.D so that in the exam you get your point across to the examiner and deal with them properly (if they come up!) and avoid over analysing/stressing their importance? I know in his report the examiner mentions people sometime show a lack of understanding of the implications of these decisions so was hoping to clarify what the right ones are! Thanks

lilyella

Firstly, I hope the study is going well for everyone on here. Have a quick question though. I applied to sit my first four exams just before the closing date and have now come to realise that I foolishly have very little covered as I had a lot going on with interviews and personal stuff and think it's a bit pointless even trying to pass 3 at this point and that I'd be better off starting now and having a proper go in March and not just sitting them for the sake of it. My question is in relation to refunds. I saw on the app form that you cannot transfer fees to the next sitting and that refunds are only given with a medical cert. Does anyone have any experience of this? Are the Law Soc reluctant to give refunds is what I'm asking basically or should a cert suffice? I would really appreciate any insight which anyone may have to this as I'm really in a pickle! Best of luck everyone

dee8839

Hi, I'm studying for my Property Law FE1 at the moment and I have two questions about Succession:

1. Where could I get the 1965 Act, besides Dublin? Anyone know of a place in Limerick selling it?

2. In relation to S117 applications, I know the principles but I HATE the Re ABC deceased summary of the law. It's so long and it just won't go into my head!! Is it ok to leave out the guidelines in that case so long as I know them in other contexts? They seem to be given a lot of importance in the GCD manual.

Thanks in advance, hope studys going well,
dee8839

page1

LiamMc26 wrote: »

Hi

Thanks for the reply page 1 but they are the EU topics I think and I was looking for the Company ones.
Could someone please post the topics that came up on the March 2010 sitting of company? 8 days to go for me - squeaky bum time!

Sorry Liammc26, the brain is fried from all the studying i dont know what subject im on. I dont have the paper to hand but roughly this is what came up
How members take decisions - resolutions etc - essay
s205 the limitations - essay
disposition of company assets - problem
directors duties - problem included common law and statute
Reg 80 - essay
corporate borrowings -
examinership - problem
share transfer ??? i think

page1

happy_man2010 wrote: »

Hi Folks, just looking for a bit of urgent advice. Especially for anyone who has sat some of the Fe1s.

My predicament at the moment is that I've Equity, Property and Contract reasonably covered. I was planning on doing Company this week but so far i've it covered fairly poorly. However, I covered it well during my undergraduate degree and was hoping this might help me. At this stage, would I better concentrating on the three aforementioned this week or should I try tackle company. Any advice would be appreciated.

Personally i think you should try and cover company too. I think its a very bad plan to only study for 3 exams, if you get a paper that doesnt suit you (which can very easily happen) thats you gone for that sitting. Learn enough to give you a good stab at it. I would cover

directors duties - you will prob get 2 questions out of it
corporate borrowings - fixed charges on book debts and registration of charges
share transfer - particularly transmission on death
receivership/liquidation
quickly cover consequences of incorporation and ultra vires and seperate legal personality

Chouette

Hey, a bit off-topic but has anyone ever been for an interview with Flynn O'Driscoll? Would be very grateful for any advice on what format their interviews tend to take.

Thanks!

happy_man2010

Thanks to RebelScorned and Page1 for the advice there. Going to cover company after all. Have it well prepared from my law degree too, so hope this stands to me. Perhaps I was getting a bit of stage fright prior to the exams!
Thanks again folks.

happy_man2010

dee8839 wrote: »

Hi, I'm studying for my Property Law FE1 at the moment and I have two questions about Succession:

1. Where could I get the 1965 Act, besides Dublin? Anyone know of a place in Limerick selling it?

2. In relation to S117 applications, I know the principles but I HATE the Re ABC deceased summary of the law. It's so long and it just won't go into my head!! Is it ok to leave out the guidelines in that case so long as I know them in other contexts? They seem to be given a lot of importance in the GCD manual.

Thanks in advance, hope studys going well,
dee8839

Hi,

O'Mahony's in UL have the Succession Act on Sale as far as I know. Relatively cheap too, around 7/8 euro (although not absolutely certain on this).

In relation to your second question I'm not too sure as I'm only sitting it this time too. However, I would say try just get a good gist of the points/guidelines there even if you don't know them verbatim.

Hope that helps.

p_bateman

dee8839 wrote: »

Hi, I'm studying for my Property Law FE1 at the moment and I have two questions about Succession:

1. Where could I get the 1965 Act, besides Dublin? Anyone know of a place in Limerick selling it?

2. In relation to S117 applications, I know the principles but I HATE the Re ABC deceased summary of the law. It's so long and it just won't go into my head!! Is it ok to leave out the guidelines in that case so long as I know them in other contexts? They seem to be given a lot of importance in the GCD manual.

Thanks in advance, hope studys going well,
dee8839

In relation to the second query, I don't think you would be expected to list the Re ABC guidelines verbatim, and one-by-one. I think a general summary of the principles along the following lines would suffice:

1. The social policy underpinning s.117 is geared towards protecting children who, by reason of their position in life, are still owed a "moral duty" by their parents.

2. The provision seeks to protect such children against instances where the deceased parent has failed to discharge this duty.

3. The courts assess the moral duty owed to the applicant from the viewpoint of a just and prudent parent, and in light of the parent's other duties and surrounding circumstances (duties to other children etc).

4. Usually, if the deceased has afforded the applicant a "headstart" in life (by providing a certain amount of education and finance) in accordance with his/her means, they will have properly provided for the child. However in special cases (i.e. where the child is disabled or is in possession of some special talent that requires nurturing), something extra may be needed by way of proper provision.

5. In light of the above, did the testator's actions constitute a positive failure in his moral duty to make proper provision?

I hope this summary makes the principles a little easier to remember. Again, I don't think the examiner is expecting a word-for-word transcript of all the principles.

dee8839

That's a great help, thanks for the replies! That summary is nice and simple. Logic I can follow, verbatim quotes of reams of prose I can't! :rolleyes:

By the way, in relation to the person who wasn't sure whether to leave Company and just focus on the others, I think if you had it well covered from your undergrad you'll fly through it, it was my best subject at undergrad and I found it quick to get through compared to the subjects that were less fresh in my mind. Ultra Vires, SLP and Minority SH Protection in particular are grand. Good luck.

brian__foley

Pat.Kenny wrote: »

Thanks for that Brian.

I also wanted to ask what you think are the key issues and best approach when dealing with Sinnott and T.D so that in the exam you get your point across to the examiner and deal with them properly (if they come up!) and avoid over analysing/stressing their importance? I know in his report the examiner mentions people sometime show a lack of understanding of the implications of these decisions so was hoping to clarify what the right ones are! Thanks

They are the most important decisions in many, many years, but the examiner's issue is that people misunderstand why.

I'm not sure I should make this too easy - what do you think the decisions mean?

coco13

Hey Guys..Re EU Law...Am covering everything except Competition Law but reckon I wont have enough done to answer the case notes question either..I would still be hoping to get 5 questions out of the paper..In the worst case scenario I'd imagine that there could be two comp law questions and one case notes question so I should still manage to get five from that...Worst case scenario,,I hope!!! Any opinions re the above please????Or what is everyone else doing?

Jev/N

coco13 wrote: »

Hey Guys..Re EU Law...Am covering everything except Competition Law but reckon I wont have enough done to answer the case notes question either..I would still be hoping to get 5 questions out of the paper..In the worst case scenario I'd imagine that there could be two comp law questions and one case notes question so I should still manage to get five from that...Worst case scenario,,I hope!!! Any opinions re the above please????Or what is everyone else doing?

I doubt there'll be 2 competition questions and if there is, it could be an A or B and encompass topics like state aid and state participation.

He has said in the exam paper that he doesn't like people relying on certain topics coming up, like competition, so it might only play a small role on this paper. He also hinted at the fact that the casenotes might not be on every paper so it's hard to know the situation for this upcoming one.

I'd say you're fine without competition if doing everything else. And if things don't come up perfectly, you can always bullshít the casenote question!

coco13

Jev/N wrote: »

I doubt there'll be 2 competition questions and if there is, it could be an A or B and encompass topics like state aid and state participation.

He has said in the exam paper that he doesn't like people relying on certain topics coming up, like competition, so it might only play a small role on this paper. He also hinted at the fact that the casenotes might not be on every paper so it's hard to know the situation for this upcoming one.

I'd say you're fine without competition if doing everything else. And if things don't come up perfectly, you can always bullshít the casenote question!

Cheers for that!! Fingers Crossed..Now to get through all the other stuff on the course!!!!

pansoul

Also in relation to EU, specifically section 13 of the syllabus on Private International Law/recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, I was just wondering what people are covering?

Of the previous questions I've seen, the examinable parts seem to be A. 2-5 of Brussels I. Is that it?

I've only old college notes for this part of the course so I'd be grateful if someone could give an outline of the areas to cover so that I have a bit of direction. Thank you kindly.

Jev/N

At this stage I wouldn't say there's point in bothering but anyways...

No offence but I thought it would be pretty self-explanatory
You write the main topic in a big bubble, the sub-topics in smaller bubbles and the smaller topics and/or cases in smaller bubbles again

Pat.Kenny

brian__foley wrote: »

They are the most important decisions in many, many years, but the examiner's issue is that people misunderstand why.

I'm not sure I should make this too easy - what do you think the decisions mean?

My very basic understanding of the decisions (in relation to non-justiciabilty and socio-economic rights) is that T.D. highlighted the courts reluctance to enforce claims relating to socio-economic rights and they only intervene when there's a conscious/deliberate breach of a constitutional right. I think the CJ questioned whether courts should be declaring these rights under Art 40 and reaffirmed the more conservative approach that distribution of state resources was a matter for the legislature which was outside the remit of the courts (would infringe SOP). Sinnott was along the same lines I think and courts said intervening would breach SOP there and that distributive justice should be left to the other branches.

Not sure if my understanding is at all correct there and what else would be important to discuss?

youngmoney

guys if anyone can save me from having to spend a chunk of my post fe1 boozing fund on a new copy of the companies acts and has a copy theyd like to sell or no someone who do, pm me, thanks!!! i know theres a thread for this sorta thing , but there cant be many readin the manuals 4 sale thread a week before the exams! thanks!

mirm

OK, I still got no exam number and I am actually freaking out!!! Rang the law society and they keep putting me through to voicemail!!! Please tell me that someone else is in the same position

brian__foley

Pat.Kenny wrote: »

My very basic understanding of the decisions (in relation to non-justiciabilty and socio-economic rights) is that T.D. highlighted the courts reluctance to enforce claims relating to socio-economic rights and they only intervene when there's a conscious/deliberate breach of a constitutional right. I think the CJ questioned whether courts should be declaring these rights under Art 40 and reaffirmed the more conservative approach that distribution of state resources was a matter for the legislature which was outside the remit of the courts (would infringe SOP). Sinnott was along the same lines I think and courts said intervening would breach SOP there and that distributive justice should be left to the other branches.

Not sure if my understanding is at all correct there and what else would be important to discuss?

It's a bit more complicated than that. I'll set it out in some bullet points

1. Costello J's decision in O'Reilly suggested that anything to do with what could be classed as claims coming under the label of distributive justice shouldn't be vented in Court. That seemed, logically, to mean that if the consequence of your argument was a claim to a portion of the nation's wealth, it wasn't a legal argument. I mean, saying the distribution of resources is "for the legislature" is a rubbish argument in the grand scheme of things because it patently isn't "for" the legislature in any non-question begging way. Rather, very respectable legal arguments raise questions about the appropriateness of expenditure but it doesn't make them any less legal. In essence, the consequences of vindicating a right ought not really be the measuring stick against whether you class the original claim as a legal or political one.

2. The decisions in FN and DB suggested, maybe, that the reluctance to become involved wouldn't exist where the right claimed was pre-existing.

3. In obiter in Sinnott, however, Hardiman J referred to O'Reilly as a very important constitutional value thus raising the suspicion that the SC was willing to say "no" to both (a) the recognition and (b) the enforcement of rights that may require public expenditure for vindication.

4. The SC in TD, however, didn't approve that line of reasoning at all. Rather, the ratio of that decision was simply that whatever about the recognition of a right, no mandatory order could be granted against the executive compelling a particular compliance. Ergo, TD doesn't say "no" to socio-economic rights. It says "no" to a manner of enforcement.

5. Kelly J in O'Donoghue v Legal Aid Board applied just this logic when he got a chance - i.e. "I can declare the existence of a right, give damages for breach, but I just can't make the mandatory order".

6. Thus, we reach the conclusion that it seems we can argue just as much as we want for socio-economic rights and if they are there, they are there. The difficulty is with enforcement. That said, however, one cannot ignore that the courts appear cautious in relation to the recognition of such rights. Keane CJ went as far (as point out) to suggest that the entire notion of recognising unenumerated rights ought be re-examined and Hardiman J suggested new socio-economic rights could only be recognised after plebiscite. Nevertheless in the first Murray SC decision in Re Article 26 and the Health No2. Amendment Bill, the SC clearly pointed out that the simple fact that a right will "tug" at public expenditure is not, per se, a reason not to recognise it.

7. Hence the lesson is never to argue that Sinnott and T.D. say "no" to socio-economic rights. It's far more nuanced than that.

Brian010

Does any one know the difference between the McCann and Courtney Companies Act and the legislation you can buy in the Government Publications Office? I know McCann and Courtney is a hefty 96€ but the Gov version is around 40€. Is there any extra benefit from getting the more expensive version or any significant differences between the two?!

fifi8_4

Hi just wondering if someone with the Equity October 2007 paper could put up the topics that came up in the short questions that year.!
Would really appreciate it thanks!

Brian010

fifi8_4 wrote: »

Hi just wondering if someone with the Equity October 2007 paper could put up the topics that came up in the short questions that year.!
Would really appreciate it thanks!

Q.6 The Rule in Strong v Bird - Equitable Remedy of Rectification - The Presumption of Advancement

Donatio Mortis Causa came up separately in Q.4 as an essay question.

fifi8_4

Brian010 wrote: »

Q.6 The Rule in Strong v Bird - Equitable Remedy of Rectification - The Presumption of Advancement

Donatio Mortis Causa came up separately in Q.4 as an essay question.

Thanks so much!

mbee

Hi all,
Just wondering if anyone has any tips on how to tackle Defamation? The new act as put me off altogether as my notes are pre 2009. I have printed the 2009 act and have a general grasp of it but not sure what to do with my old notes. Do i still include the pre act cases in my study or are they irrelevant now, (confused as some of the defences have been replaced but are pretty similar to the original eg. justification replaced with defence of truth) Was hoping to leave deafam out altogether but seeing as it was not on last April's paper, it would be risky. Anyone any thoughts?

Becky55

Hi guys does anyone know the stance on the new article numbering, will the examinor be very strict this sitting or will he be more lenient like the last sitting??