FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Jev/N

Becky55 wrote: »

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??

He said he will be somewhat lenient in upcoming examinations due to the relative novelty of the treaty, however I can't see how it should be an issue as it's all in Blackstones

Pat.Kenny

brian__foley wrote: »

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.

Thanks very much for explaining the above it makes a lot more sense now.

Pat.Kenny

mbee wrote: »

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?

I'm in the same boat as you on defamation, finding it a bit tricky because my notes are out of date aswell and not sure which way the question will come up (if it makes it on the paper). The way I've tried learning it so far is revising defamation prior to 2009 Act (the case law and defences etc) and then just trying to note in the changes at the end of each section and note any major reforms/criticisms. I think someone may have mentioned that there was some case recently on internet defamation although I'm not entirely sure about that as I haven't looked into yet myself. I figure it's worth being able to compare the old system to the new (in case an essay type question came up like that) and doing the same with the defences/award of damages but I could be completely wrong on that so if anyone has any better thoughts on how to deal with the topic I'd be interested too!

Best of luck with it

Ruby83

Pat.Kenny wrote: »

I'm in the same boat as you on defamation, finding it a bit tricky because my notes are out of date aswell and not sure which way the question will come up (if it makes it on the paper). The way I've tried learning it so far is revising defamation prior to 2009 Act (the case law and defences etc) and then just trying to note in the changes at the end of each section and note any major reforms/criticisms. I think someone may have mentioned that there was some case recently on internet defamation although I'm not entirely sure about that as I haven't looked into yet myself. I figure it's worth being able to compare the old system to the new (in case an essay type question came up like that) and doing the same with the defences/award of damages but I could be completely wrong on that so if anyone has any better thoughts on how to deal with the topic I'd be interested too!

Best of luck with it

I sat defamation last March and although a question on it didn't come up (thankfully!), your suggestion above was exactly how I prepared for it also. Basically old law compared to new law. I did the Griffith course and the lecturer was also of the the view that you needed to know the old stuff as although the act changes things, alot of the case law will still be relevant.

Mshellster

I'm getting kinda muddled with these cases and hoping someone might be able to set me straight. Does Foy ruling mean that legislation will have to be introduced to allow transsexuals change their birth certificate?

Does the Civil Partnership Bill giving legal recognition to same-sex couples mean that Zappone isn't really a major issue anymore in that it excluded same-sex marriage but now the Bill will extend many of the same marriage type benefits to such couples? I'm feel like I missing important points/issues here and I've been very last minute with my study so any help would be brilliant.

JessieJ

Ruby83 wrote: »

I sat defamation last March and although a question on it didn't come up (thankfully!), your suggestion above was exactly how I prepared for it also. Basically old law compared to new law. I did the Griffith course and the lecturer was also of the the view that you needed to know the old stuff as although the act changes things, alot of the case law will still be relevant.

I'm learning Defamation in this way too. Fingers crossed it will come up!

I've a (silly) question: I write slowly and I'm just wondering will be alright to write Def., for defendant, HC for High Court etc in the exam? I've always done that for my undergrad exams but I don't want to be pissing off any of the examiners!

Also, how is everybody holding up for Property (aka the bane of my life!) I'm really cut for time and have covered the history, nature etc, equity, estates, co-ownership, adverse possession, licences and estoppel, family property, incorp hered., covenants and succession. Should I try to pull out another topic or two? Eek. Help!

Jev/N

Mshellster wrote: »

I'm getting kinda muddled with these cases and hoping someone might be able to set me straight. Does Foy ruling mean that legislation will have to be introduced to allow transsexuals change their birth certificate?

My understanding was that it was a non-issue. The birth cert was a historical document or a 'snapshot' and the absence of the ability to change the gender was not unconstitutional and it did not undermine the applicant's rights.

Jev/N

JessieJ wrote: »

I've a (silly) question: I write slowly and I'm just wondering will be alright to write Def., for defendant, HC for High Court etc in the exam? I've always done that for my undergrad exams but I don't want to be pissing off any of the examiners!

The first time you write it, write it in full with the abbreviation in brackets like High Court ('HC'). That's the preferred format AFAIK as it removes doubt, if any, in relation to what the abbreviation stands for

JessieJ

Jev/N wrote: »

My understanding was that it was a non-issue. The birth cert was a historical document or a 'snapshot' and the absence of the ability to change the gender was not unconstitutional and it did not undermine the applicant's rights.

This is from the RTE website;
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0621/foyl.html

mbee

Pat.Kenny wrote: »

I'm in the same boat as you on defamation, finding it a bit tricky because my notes are out of date aswell and not sure which way the question will come up (if it makes it on the paper). The way I've tried learning it so far is revising defamation prior to 2009 Act (the case law and defences etc) and then just trying to note in the changes at the end of each section and note any major reforms/criticisms. I think someone may have mentioned that there was some case recently on internet defamation although I'm not entirely sure about that as I haven't looked into yet myself. I figure it's worth being able to compare the old system to the new (in case an essay type question came up like that) and doing the same with the defences/award of damages but I could be completely wrong on that so if anyone has any better thoughts on how to deal with the topic I'd be interested too!

Best of luck with it

Thanks for that Pat, best of luck with the rest of your study.

Jev/N

JessieJ wrote: »

This is from the RTE website;
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0621/foyl.html

Hmm... interesting, I realise I was relying on the 2002 case for information and hadn't heard about that updated situation.

It could involve a question on the influence of the ECHR following the 2003 Act in light of this but I doubt you'd be expected to discuss something that 'fresh'? I could be wrong though!

NoQuarter

mbee wrote: »

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?

Im doing it a little different than everyone else seems to be. Ive disregarded the old law and am working from the act backwards.

So I start with the act, learn the provisions of that, and any previous area that hasnt been affected by the act, the common law still applies and im using the case law there.

doing

How hard are these exams to pass? What would the fail rate be? Like 25%? 50? 75% even?

And what level of detail would they be looking for? I mean obviously they'd want to know the names of precedent cases and the years, but would they want a full account of proceedings or just the gist of it? IE names, year, the conclusion the court came to that is relevant to the question versus everything you know about it?

I mean if the question concerns advice for a client for example would you just shoehorn everything you know as far as the history side goes in there before going on to answer the question which would technically be going above and beyond what's necessary as far as answering the question, or would you just give the info required to technically answer the questions?


Good luck next week to you all by the way.

Jev/N

doing wrote: »

How hard are these exams to pass? What would the fail rate be? Like 25%? 50? 75% even?

And what level of detail would they be looking for? I mean obviously they'd want to know the names of precedent cases and the years, but would they want a full account of proceedings or just the gist of it? IE names, year, the conclusion the court came to that is relevant to the question versus everything you know about it?

I mean if the question concerns advice for a client for example would you just shoehorn everything you know as far as the history side goes in there before going on to answer the question which would technically be going above and beyond what's necessary as far as answering the question, or would you just give the info required to technically answer the questions?


Good luck next week to you all by the way.

Most, if not all, will tell you that the exams are hard to pass. They require a lot of dedication over at least the space of a month or more and not just a few weeks coming up to the exams - it's a consistent study attitude that will help as you don't want to burn out too early.

The fail rate varies between 35% and 70% depending on the subject and the sitting. Not every examiner discloses the information but some do.

The detail depends on the question, that's the simple answer. You don't need to know the years but you will need to first know the legal principles each case expounds along with some of the important facts, if the question warrants such an explanation. You need to be very precise with the information you give, examiners number one hate is students putting down all they know about the general topic or case but not applying it to the situation proposed.

This leads on to your last question. No, don't put historical aspects and/or outdated law in there unless the case is a seminal one which cannot but be mentioned. A client won't want to hear the last 50 years of caselaw, they will just want the most important/recent cases relevant to their situation along with how this affects their own case.

Hope that helps!

doing

Jev/N wrote: »

Most, if not all, will tell you that the exams are hard to pass. They require a lot of dedication over at least the space of a month or more and not just a few weeks coming up to the exams - it's a consistent study attitude that will help as you don't want to burn out too early.

The fail rate varies between 35% and 70% depending on the subject and the sitting. Not every examiner discloses the information but some do.

The detail depends on the question, that's the simple answer. You don't need to know the years but you will need to first know the legal principles each case expounds along with some of the important facts, if the question warrants such an explanation. You need to be very precise with the information you give, examiners number one hate is students putting down all they know about the general topic or case but not applying it to the situation proposed.

This leads on to your last question. No, don't put historical aspects and/or outdated law in there unless the case is a seminal one which cannot but be mentioned. A client won't want to hear the last 50 years of caselaw, they will just want the most important/recent cases relevant to their situation along with how this affects their own case.

Hope that helps!

Yeah it does thanks, that's interesting that they don't even require the year. Thanks for answering my questions.

Ruby83

Jev/N wrote: »

Hmm... interesting, I realise I was relying on the 2002 case for information and hadn't heard about that updated situation.

It could involve a question on the influence of the ECHR following the 2003 Act in light of this but I doubt you'd be expected to discuss something that 'fresh'? I could be wrong though!

I also found this to be helpful and is from June of this year: http://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/2010_06_17_foy_case_briefing_document.pdf. Also the ECHR question came up as question 8 in the last sitting but that doesn't mean it wouldn't come up again I suppose.

randomchild

Jev/N wrote: »

This leads on to your last question. No, don't put historical aspects and/or outdated law in there unless the case is a seminal one which cannot but be mentioned. A client won't want to hear the last 50 years of caselaw, they will just want the most important/recent cases relevant to their situation along with how this affects their own case.

Hope that helps!

While this may be true of problem type questions, for quite a few essay questions the development of precedent is often relevant.

Brian010

Does anyone know the topics that came up on the essay questions of the previous two Tort exam papers?

Niamhb10

Hi guys hope study is going o.k....

can someone advise... im very far behind in constitutional, u reckon it would be o.k to leave out trial in due course of law, president and the courts?? or do i have to cover everything?

Thanks!

Mshellster

Thanks Jev/N and JessieJ.

Anyone have any advice on the best way to approach problem questions in Constitutional? Would anyone be able to pinpoint the issues that were relevant to the problem questions in the last sitting?

Finding it tough to figure out what's going on in some of the questions and afraid I'll end up not addressing the facts properly and writing about issues that aren't even relevant!

House Clearout

comprehensive law courses


spring 2010 manuals
30 euro each



Available subjects
tort
contract
equity
company


Open to any reasonable offers!!!

Jev/N

randomchild wrote: »

While this may be true of problem type questions, for quite a few essay questions the development of precedent is often relevant.

Absolutely, I thought that was evident from my post?

Niamhb10 wrote: »

Hi guys hope study is going o.k....

can someone advise... im very far behind in constitutional, u reckon it would be o.k to leave out trial in due course of law, president and the courts?? or do i have to cover everything?

Thanks!

The president and the courts are, by and large, in the constitution so you can definitely afford to leave them out for the exam. Just know where to look!

I'd say you're taking a massive risk leaving out 38.1 as it's the second most popular area on the paper after Separation of Powers and it has often come up in 2 questions on the paper. That's just my opinion though. They're most commonly problem questions too so that will make them easier to answer but possibly harder to spot the issues.

Mshellster wrote: »

Thanks Jev/N and JessieJ.

Anyone have any advice on the best way to approach problem questions in Constitutional? Would anyone be able to pinpoint the issues that were relevant to the problem questions in the last sitting?

Finding it tough to figure out what's going on in some of the questions and afraid I'll end up not addressing the facts properly and writing about issues that aren't even relevant!

No worries at all, sorry I gave the wrong answer!

The last sitting was on a quick glance:

Q1 - Freedom of Religion/Freedom of Expression/Unconstitutionality/Proportionality

Q3 - Non-Delegation Doctrine/Right to Property/ Right to Livelihood/Equality

Q6 - Non-Delegation Doctrine/Trial in Due Course/Jury Trial/Unconstitutionality

Q7 - Trial in Due Course (Pubilicy;Duty to seek out and Preserve Evidence)/Jury

ananas

THERE IS ANOTHER THREAD FOR SELLING OF MANUALS

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055100192

This is for discussion of the exams ffs.

On another note, I am absolutely panicking, I am trying to learn but there is just so so much. How is everyone else getting on, please say I'm not the only one up shít creek.

Ruby83

Does anyone have any advice for Company, specifically winding up as I can't seem to get my head around it. Have come to grips with s 213 e and f but everything else in that (Griffith) chapter I'm struggling to learn. Any advice on how anyone else tackled it would be greatly appreciated!! Considering just leaving out the rest but dreading company as it is so want to cover as much as possible!

Horndawg

ananas wrote: »

THERE IS ANOTHER THREAD FOR SELLING OF MANUALS

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055100192

This is for discussion of the exams ffs.

On another note, I am absolutely panicking, I am trying to learn but there is just so so much. How is everyone else getting on, please say I'm not the only one up shít creek.

You're not the only one. Sick of reading stuff over and over and nothing being retained. I've pretty much given up and currently watching the simpsons.

Brian010

Horndawg wrote: »

You're not the only one. Sick of reading stuff over and over and nothing being retained. I've pretty much given up and currently watching the simpsons.

Yeh the fear has hit big time! I'm dreading the coming weekend of the mass case memorization. Try reading it once then drawing pictures on an A3 sheet. You'll be amazed at how much you can remember by association. It makes a big difference compared to trying to learn random letters and names....

Jev/N

I'm not trying to panic yet, still just doing sample questions and essays for Constitutional today and moving onto Tort tomorrow. Memorising won't begin until Saturday for that, works best for me that way.

At the moment, I'm just trying to understand everything as best I can and gain the ability to tailor the answers required from the info I have.

law_lady

Oh I'd say we're all feeling the strain at this stage, don't worry!! Have a cup of tea and enjoy the TV for a while!

I've cut my notes down to the bare bare minimum but I'm leaving only 2 days per subject to actually learn, this could be DISASTEROUS! Bought my copy of the Succession Act today and the guy selling it actually apologised for having to charge me almost €8 for little more than a few pieces of paper half of which is as Gaeilge! Had to smile.

Question - I feel I haven't enough done for Property so going to do one more topic tonight. Which would I be better to do, Settled Land or Family Property? Opinions very much appreciated, I see from my year old manual the Settled Land Acts were due to be repealed by the 2009 Act so does that mean its all irrelevant now? Tried to search the Expanatory Memo but without being familiar with the topic I'm confused!

ananas

law_lady wrote: »

Oh I'd say we're all feeling the strain at this stage, don't worry!! Have a cup of tea and enjoy the TV for a while!

I've cut my notes down to the bare bare minimum but I'm leaving only 2 days per subject to actually learn, this could be DISASTEROUS! Bought my copy of the Succession Act today and the guy selling it actually apologised for having to charge me almost €8 for little more than a few pieces of paper half of which is as Gaeilge! Had to smile.

Question - I feel I haven't enough done for Property so going to do one more topic tonight. Which would I be better to do, Settled Land or Family Property? Opinions very much appreciated, I see from my year old manual the Settled Land Acts were due to be repealed by the 2009 Act so does that mean its all irrelevant now? Tried to search the Expanatory Memo but without being familiar with the topic I'm confused!

Do family property and SLICE it down, settled land has been basically repealed bar overreaching interests-I'm leaving it out anyways.

Makes me feel so much better that everyone is the same as me, thank jeebus:D

Niamhb10

Hi Jev/N thanks a mil for your reply! sounds as if i would be mental to leave 38.1 out.

slightly panicing now.... for some reason i have no notes at all for 38.1!! only have Casey book 3rd edition from 2000! crap. would be most grateful if anyone could point out any relevant up-to-date cases for Trail in Due Course of Law?? Thanks!