FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Brian010

Jev/N wrote: »

I thought it was both.

The defamation one kinda pissed me off as I had expected an essay so I had to waffle the question relying on a majority of statute

Yeh the defamation one was bollocks. I just waffled. I didn't know if there was any precedent or rule for social networking. I hope the examiner isn't too harsh. Does he have a rep as a tough marker does any one know?

Jev/N

Brian010 wrote: »

I didn't know if there was any precedent or rule for social networking.

There isn't really but the acts applies to publication in any form so it would most likely include it

Now to try and get constitutional into my head!

Brian010

Jev/N wrote: »

There isn't really but the acts applies to publication in any form so it would most likely include it

Now to try and get constitutional into my head!

Grand. I have company tomorrow so the cramming begins in the next 20 mins lol! Good luck with Constitutional. I rolled the dice with that and got lucky. So many topics to learn it's just ridiculous.

to8

Did pyschiatric injury/nervous shock come up today in tort?

NoQuarter

to8 wrote: »

Did pyschiatric injury/nervous shock come up today in tort?

I didnt spot it there, but that doesnt say much for that paper!

Brian010

to8 wrote: »

Did pyschiatric injury/nervous shock come up today in tort?

No. I don't think so anyway lol. Defamation, Animals, Public Authorities, Medical Neg/Vicarious, Negligent Misstatement, Private Nuisance, Consent, Products liability? I didn't do the one about the food so not sure.

Jev/N

Brian010 wrote: »

No. I don't think so anyway lol. Defamation, Animals, Public Authorities, Medical Neg/Vicarious, Negligent Misstatement, Private Nuisance, Consent, Products liability? I didn't do the one about the food so not sure.

Haven't a clue about that food one, totally dodged that.

I classed Q3 as Occupiers Liability but someone else just did it on general negligence principles?

randomchild

Avoided the food one, thought at first product liability but then the question asked was he "responsible" in tort so think its casuation.

Avoided the 3rd question as well, kicking myself now because I half answered on intent when that could be answered on basic principals/contributory negligence i think? That was quite a tough paper, feel wrecked and have company tomorrow...

Brian010

Jev/N wrote: »

Haven't a clue about that food one, totally dodged that.

I classed Q3 as Occupiers Liability but someone else just did it on general negligence principles?

Yeh I think it could be Occupiers Liability. It could be done on general negligence I suppose with contributory negligence thrown in.

NickDrake

Brian010 wrote: »

Yeh I think it could be Occupiers Liability. It could be done on general negligence I suppose with contributory negligence thrown in.

Occupiers? How are they visitors when they actually own the houses? Just think about it. I can't imagine it being used in that context.

The question was surely on gen neg and con neg.

Regarding question on vicarious liability. Why the hell did he try and mess with us there? I answered it mainly on vicarious with a bit on med neg being outside the scope of employment. Wonder what way he wanted it

Maybe Brian Foley has some suggestions?

All in all a very tough paper. Trying to catch people out is a bit petty.

NickDrake

Brian010 wrote: »

No. I don't think so anyway lol. Defamation, Animals, Public Authorities, Medical Neg/Vicarious, Negligent Misstatement, Private Nuisance, Consent, Products liability? I didn't do the one about the food so not sure.

Public authorities?? It was a management company. How is that a public authority. think you are wrong there. I hope

Brian010

NickDrake wrote: »

Occupiers? How are they visitors when they actually own the houses? Just think about it. I can't imagine it being used in that context.

The question was surely on gen neg and con neg.

I'm hoping it isn't Occupiers! I didn't study it but had a glance there and wasn't so sure. Esta Services weren't occupiers but managers I suppose. They had some control of the state of the property though. I just hope a general negligence answer gets a pass mark.

Tort is definitely the trickiest so far.

Brian010

NickDrake wrote: »

Public authorities?? It was a management company. How is that a public authority. think you are wrong there. I hope

Yeah it wasn't a public authority. I got that wrong. I threw in general negligence and duty of care jargon tho so I hope I get marks!

NickDrake

Brian010 wrote: »

Yeah it wasn't a public authority. I got that wrong. I threw in general negligence and duty of care jargon tho so I hope I get marks!

Same here with some contrib negligence for the speeding.

Tricky paper by Friel and Quill today.

lawyer?

Bit late in the day I know but does anyone know where I can get a copy of the Constitution in Dublin city centre? Not in Government Publications Office and all other book shops I've tried, something about a reprint, due back in soon. Thanks!

Jev/N

NickDrake wrote: »

Occupiers? How are they visitors when they actually own the houses? Just think about it. I can't imagine it being used in that context.

It won't actually matter for the answer at the end as it's a duty of reasonable care owed if your taking the question under the Act or not

I would say that it they definitely are classed as an occupier as the question explicitly mentions control. In addition, the damage is due to the state of the premises. They are visitors as they don't own or control the common areas but have a contractual provision (assumed on my part) or at least an express/implied permission as a result of ownership.

That's just my view... please don't take this as gospel!

blathblath

I am heartbroken after realising q. 6 was on vicarious.... such an evil question have no cases whatsoever regarding the vicarious liability of hospitals regarding employees as professionals! answered the whole thing on medical negligence. pretty sure that is a fail for me as 5th question was very weak.

NoQuarter

I answered the Esta one as causation and remoteness. As in the co. with the dodgey sign and high ramp materially contributed to the accident but the driver by speeding up to hurry home was a novus actus!

Seems everyone had different ideas about each question!

NickDrake

Jev/N wrote: »

It won't actually matter for the answer at the end as it's a duty of reasonable care owed if your taking the question under the Act or not

I would say that it they definitely are classed as an occupier as the question explicitly mentions control. In addition, the damage is due to the state of the premises. They are visitors as they don't own or control the common areas but have a contractual provision (assumed on my part) or at least an express/implied permission as a result of ownership.

That's just my view... please don't take this as gospel!

Ya spotted the control part. Why did he put on such a messy question on? To catch people out and mess with them?

I can see him picking one of the other and only giving marks for the one he chooses. Seems like that from exam reports.

NoQuarter

blathblath wrote: »

I am heartbroken after realising q. 6 was on vicarious.... such an evil question have no cases whatsoever regarding the vicarious liability of hospitals regarding employees as professionals! answered the whole thing on medical negligence. pretty sure that is a fail for me as 5th question was very weak.

To be honest i studied both vicarious and med neg and i answered it on medical negligence!

I dont see how there would have been much scope to discuss vicarious, i threw it in in my conclusion but thats it!

Arsenal1986

lawyer? wrote: »

Bit late in the day I know but does anyone know where I can get a copy of the Constitution in Dublin city centre? Not in Government Publications Office and all other book shops I've tried, something about a reprint, due back in soon. Thanks!

Really, thats mental! A Library will surely have one or two, theres one in the ILAC in Dublin city centre and there is one right beside the RDS, just beside where you go in to do the exams.

If your not a library memeber, they might let you borrow one for an the duration of the exam anyway if you leave something with them like ID maybe

If all else fails and you cant get one, then dont panic its not act that useful in the exam, i dont remember consulting mine once in it last year and i did fine.

Jev/N

@BlathBlath - I wouldn't worry at all, I mentioned very little of Vicarious as I believed there was little doubt that they were both roughly within the course of employment. Mostly based it on medical, Dunne and causation issues


@NoQuarter - I completely forgot remoteness but mentioned causation issues relating to the speed/contib negligence

NickDrake

NoQuarter wrote: »

To be honest i studied both vicarious and med neg and i answered it on medical negligence!

I dont see how there would have been much scope to discuss vicarious, i threw it in in my conclusion but thats it!

But you were asked to advise the hospital on liability and not the Nurse and Doctor.

The hospital did not commit the acts and therefore the question was mainly on vicarious.

Thats my take on it anyway. Going on a previous questions on trespass and vicarious liability.

Another messy question.

Jev/N

lawyer? wrote: »

Bit late in the day I know but does anyone know where I can get a copy of the Constitution in Dublin city centre? Not in Government Publications Office and all other book shops I've tried, something about a reprint, due back in soon. Thanks!

I got mine in Easons in Dundrum Town Centre, not sure if there's still any there but it could be worth a shot?

Did you try Easons, Hodges Figgis, Waterstone's etc. and ask them to check other branches?

NoQuarter

NickDrake wrote: »

But you were asked to advise the hospital on liability and not the Nurse and Doctor.

Yeah your probably right, I just hope its not a solely Vicarious question and at least half the marks were for medical negligence!

tony28

I thought the hospital q was a vicarious liability , and whether the hospital could be liable vicariously for the professional negligence of the nurse and doctor, so had to establish that there was vicarious liability but first if there was med negligence which had major causation issues?-otherwrise thought the paper was quite nasty, defamation q wasnt particularly good, whilst issues arose about the new act it seemed very statute based and felt like i was missing out on something-nasty overall i thinks

darahiggins

i answered the defamation topic concentrating mainly on the defences in the new act, i think pretty good, then trespass and nuisance were both decent! my med neg was only ok i only touched on vicarious liability with the pyne case and then for neg misstatement i was fairly all over the place, i got the cases down without much coherency did anyone allow bernard to recover? i said yes depending on whether court would find it forseeable that he would rely on the statement......somebody allay my fears please!

tony28

i didnt think bernard could recover due to a lack of special relationship and even if he overcame this hurdle agagin i thought there may be an issue regarding remoteness of the damage as i didnt think based on the advice given it was reasonably forseeable that he would invest 1m without any other research-could be well wrong though

brian__foley

Chouette wrote: »

HI Brian

Can you clarify a bit more what is meant by an administrative action? In Casey, it is the preservation and portection of national monuments, but how is this administrative?

Also in the question at hand, is the introduction of a fishing ban considered administrative?

Thanks

You really have to read the case and the line of case-law dealing with this limitation on the non-delegation doctrine. The upshot of this and other cases appears to be that the doctrine only bites when actual statutory instrument making power is given to the Executive and nothing else. As was said in Casey: "We are not concerned here with the making or the enforcement of a legislative instrument. The preservation and protection of national monuments is quintessentially an administrative matter to be achieved by implementing policy decisions.".

See also Re Article 26 and the Health (No.2) (Amendment) Bill, 2004 and Salafia v Min for Environment.

So no principles and policies were necessary because something short of a power to make a legislative instrument was given. It could be criticised as being slightly too formal an approach.

brian__foley

OisinT wrote: »

Administrative actions are carried out by administrative bodies, i.e. government bodies. If the administrative action is considered ultra vires then one has the ability (or ought to have the ability) to judicially review the decision.
So, is the implementation of a fishing ban ultra vires the powers of that body?

Hope that's what you're asking

There is nothing wrong with the above, but it's not what the "heat" is in the Casey decision and its possible impact on the application of the Cityview principles, which is what the question under discussion was examining.