FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

NoQuarter

JCJCJC wrote: »

me being an impulsive thicko I dived into the new Act of course ;-)

JC

Likewise, never even thought to ask when it happened! oops!

Hogzy wrote: »

I so regret voting yes on Lisbon :P

I literally voted no for lisbon just because i didnt want the law to change!! I know how stupid that is but i dont care either!

Amre17

Hi all..

I did company last tues and made a mess of it and ill be sitting it again in march but I didnt do any courses and I was wondering is there any new legislation or changes in the law that are due in that might change the course.. wanted to start back straight away but dont want to do stuff that wont be needed come march..


Many thanks in advance..

NickDrake

Best of luck to all next week

brian__foley

steph86 wrote: »

Hey
I'm planning on starting my first four fe1s in November with Eu, Tort Criminal and Contract being my first.
i'll be doing the online revision course with griffith college.
Did anyone do these subjects together? I finished college in May and Eu was my last subject and that with Tort would be my strongest areas so believe it would be better to start with strongest areas first seeing as you need to pass three out of four on your first sitting.
Also, did anyone do the griffith online course for the Fe1s? Only know one person that done the on line course but they done it for the Kings Inns exams and passed them first time.

Have a think about combining equity and contract. There is enough overlap to be worth it. Not a huge amount, but certainly enough.

brian__foley

32minutes wrote: »

thoought the exam was pretty tough, not as rights focussed as last time, casenotes i thought were also difficult choices so left them out.

so for q4 Johns leaky tank; inviolability of dwelling, unconstitutionally obtained evidence ? what was was the other issue as I wasn't sure ?

q5: locus standi and equality being the main issue ? also finding of invalidity.

q7: right to earn a livelihood mainly, property rights and non delegation doctrine ?

thought the courts question was also a bit rough- wrote two pages on art 37 SOP before realising i was wasting my time

From what I see (very brief look)...

Q1) Straight forward discursive question. Quite possible a quote from his new book "The New Separation of Power" and pretty much the theme of the entire work. Should have presented no problems and would have sorted out "rote learners" from those able to know the law and discuss it without regurgitating tracts about cases.

Q2) Pretty seminal cases there and would be hard to see how one could do constitutional law and not know about those cases.

Q3) Not an essay "what is judicial independence" but an essay on its necessity for democratic functioning. Lots of scope for good discussion, little scope for rote learning again. Is it necessary? What is it about judicial independence that ensures democratic functioning?

Q4) Would raise issues primarily of absolute and strict liability and the impact of CC v Ireland and unconstitutionally obtained evidence and the impact of Cashand discussion. Usually these kinds of acts have specific power of entry, but you're not told this. Could raise the jurisdicition issue - i.e. you're not told where he will be tried and there may be issues on jurisdiction.

Q5) Equality would seem to be the substantive issue and you are asked for advises on whether they "may" challenge the Act. One could argue that you are only being asked for procedural advises here. In any event it raises standing / Jus Tertii in several forms, in particular, the standing of interest groups. Also practical advise on consequences needed and on what a Court can do after a successful challenge. Need to discuss the usual practice of "nuking" and maybe refer the more subtle approaches sometimes used in cases like McMenamin (sending judgment to the government) and "levelling up" as discussed in W v W and McKinley v Minister for Defence.

Q6) Straight forward and has occured in the past like this.

Q7) Non-delegation and a levy - very Cityview Press v AnCo - in line also with the discussion on this board a few pages ago re Casey. Right to earn a livlihood is there and the general discussion of rights limitiation under that banner (i.e. establish the attack, and assail its "justice" via a proportionality argument etc). Good references would have included ones to the general attitude of the courts in livlihood cases (Cafolla, Casey etc). You might query if cases like Cafolla can lose, does Barry have a chance?

Q8) Recurring essay, and again should be no problems.

Really, I think that's one of the better papers of the lot this year.

ElmoLaw

Hi all,

What is the distinction between duress of circumstances and necessity? is it that necessity arises more naturally than DOC - ie. outside forces are more at work with DOC? Any idea if we were asked this on the exam how we would distinguish one from the other as imo they seem so similar.

Thanks alot

dee8839

I'm gone cross eyed from looking at equity. I'm at the learning off stage and so far I've done:

Interlocutory Injunctions
Quia Timet Injunctions
Secret Trusts
Resulting Trusts
Undue Influence
The Three Certainties
Tracing
Donatio Mortis Causa
Rectification
Recission
Quistclose Trusts
Formal Requirements for Trusts

From the topics I've been studying up along, and have good notes for, I still haven't learned:

Mareva Injunctions
Anton Piller Orders
Specific Performance
Estoppel
Trusteeship

Which ones can I cut out of this?

I did contract so maybe I'd be crazy not to do Estoppel after that. Also I know how important injunctions are. If you were to cut out 2 out of the above 5 topics, which ones? Which came up in the March sitting? I just don't think my brain can take in much more!! I shouldn't have left these til last!:(

Thanks in advance, hope everyone is getting on well so far, sorry to hear that EU was so rough!

brian__foley

ElmoLaw wrote: »

Hi all,

What is the distinction between duress of circumstances and necessity? is it that necessity arises more naturally than DOC - ie. outside forces are more at work with DOC? Any idea if we were asked this on the exam how we would distinguish one from the other as imo they seem so similar.

Thanks alot

From somewhere wonderful:

MAIN TEXT

The term “duress” as it is used in this Chapter refers to both duress brought on by threats made by another person and to duress brought on by the force of circumstances. The latter is sometimes referred to as the defence of necessity or duress of circumstances. Whereas there is little Irish law on the topic, the better view, it seems, is that although the source of the overbearing force differs as between duress and necessity, the legal principles tend to be identical for both(5)

FOOTNOTE 5

In R v Shayler [2001] 1 WLR 2206 Lord Woolf in the Court of Appeal held that “the distinction between duress of circumstances and necessity has, correctly, been by and large ignored or blurred by the courts. Apart from some of the medical cases…the law has tended to treat duress of circumstances and necessity as one and the same.” (One might note that Shayler was appealed to the House of Lords whose decision is reported at [2003] 1 AC 247 but in which there is no adverse comment on Lord Woolf’s discussion of duress and necessity). See also R v Howe [1987] AC 417, at 429 per Lord Hailsham: “There is, of course, an obvious distinction between duress and necessity as potential defences; duress arises from the wrongful threats or violence of another human being and necessity arises from any other objective dangers threatening the accused. This, however, is, in my view a distinction without a relevant difference, since on this view duress is only that species of the genus of necessity which is caused by wrongful threats”. For other decisions where the law on duress and necessity is treated as relatively interchangeable see e.g. R v Martin [1988] 88 Cr. App. Rep. 343; Quayle & Ors v R [2005] EWCA Crim 1415, at paras. 38-40. Indeed, in Quayle the Court of Appeal applied much of the House of Lords discussion of duress in Hasan v R. [2005] 2 A.C. 467 directly in the context of necessity.

ElmoLaw

Thanks a million for you help Brian. Very helpful!

AnnAh1986

dee8839 wrote: »

I'm gone cross eyed from looking at equity. I'm at the learning off stage and so far I've done:

Interlocutory Injunctions
Quia Timet Injunctions
Secret Trusts
Resulting Trusts
Undue Influence
The Three Certainties
Tracing
Donatio Mortis Causa
Rectification
Recission
Quistclose Trusts
Formal Requirements for Trusts

From the topics I've been studying up along, and have good notes for, I still haven't learned:

Mareva Injunctions
Anton Piller Orders
Specific Performance
Estoppel
Trusteeship

Which ones can I cut out of this?

I did contract so maybe I'd be crazy not to do Estoppel after that. Also I know how important injunctions are. If you were to cut out 2 out of the above 5 topics, which ones? Which came up in the March sitting? I just don't think my brain can take in much more!! I shouldn't have left these til last!:(

Thanks in advance, hope everyone is getting on well so far, sorry to hear that EU was so rough!

main topics March 2010:
Quia timet
rectification
Rescission
secret trusts
purpose trusts
constructive trusts
trusteeship

Orla FitzP

EXAM TECHNIQUE!!!

do u think if u do 3 brillant answers but dont actually finish the paper that it will hinder u passing???
Will the examiner be like well she didnt finish so she shouldnt pass???

just wondering whats peoples thoughts were on that???

i know its abit desperate but mayb examiners have a policy on that kinda thing???

Ruby83

dee8839 wrote: »

I'm gone cross eyed from looking at equity. I'm at the learning off stage and so far I've done:

Interlocutory Injunctions
Quia Timet Injunctions
Secret Trusts
Resulting Trusts
Undue Influence
The Three Certainties
Tracing
Donatio Mortis Causa
Rectification
Recission
Quistclose Trusts
Formal Requirements for Trusts

From the topics I've been studying up along, and have good notes for, I still haven't learned:

Mareva Injunctions
Anton Piller Orders
Specific Performance
Estoppel
Trusteeship

Which ones can I cut out of this?

I did contract so maybe I'd be crazy not to do Estoppel after that. Also I know how important injunctions are. If you were to cut out 2 out of the above 5 topics, which ones? Which came up in the March sitting? I just don't think my brain can take in much more!! I shouldn't have left these til last!:(

Thanks in advance, hope everyone is getting on well so far, sorry to hear that EU was so rough!

All 5 of those topics you have listed have been tipped to come up. Not that tips are always right but if I were you I'd try to get most of them done.
Anton Pillar and Trusteeship aren't too long and I'd def do specific performance if I were you. I've just done the estoppel chapter and that's not too bad at all if you've done it before. Specific Performance would be my first topic if I were you and its pretty straightforward. Marevq is more complicated but seems like a sure thing. I know thats no help as to what to leave out but you may be able to prioritise this evening! I'm feeling you're pain. Sick of equity at the mo!

brian__foley

Orla FitzP wrote: »

EXAM TECHNIQUE!!!

do u think if u do 3 brillant answers but dont actually finish the paper that it will hinder u passing???

Yes...massively so. Its nothing to do with policy. To pass you'd need 250/500 and on three questions thats 83 each and, no disrepect intended, but you're not about to get that.

NoQuarter

Orla FitzP wrote: »

EXAM TECHNIQUE!!!

do u think if u do 3 brillant answers but dont actually finish the paper that it will hinder u passing???
Will the examiner be like well she didnt finish so she shouldnt pass???

just wondering whats peoples thoughts were on that???

i know its abit desperate but mayb examiners have a policy on that kinda thing???

Put it this way, if you answered only 3 amazingly brilliant questions, the MAX result you can get is 60%. IF you answer all 3 perfect that is! And considering the pass grade is 50% youd be doing more than well!

Even 4 good answers would have me worried!

pansoul

brian__foley wrote: »

Yes...massively so. Its nothing to do with policy. To pass you'd need 250/500 and on three questions thats 83 each and, no disrepect intended, but you're not about to get that.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think you'd get in, say, Constitutional or Contract? I was thinking the other day it'd be interesting to see the results if some lecturer anonymously took the exams; or indeed what the examiner would give themselves if they, well, if they didn't know they'd written the answers themselves.

Is 100% possible? I remember I got 99% in one Geography question in the Leaving Cert!

CFOLEY85

hi guys

just some questions Im hoping some one can clarify, please,

Tracing: Under what category does the rule in Fowcett v Mckeow and RE Money Markets Stockbrokers apply?

Undue influence: Does Barclays bank v Obrien, Etridge, Fitzgerald and Smith apply to other third parties apart from husband and wife scenario?

Hogzy

pansoul wrote: »

Is 100% possible? I remember I got 99% in one Geography question in the Leaving Cert!

Thats different though. The leaving cert has a set syllabus so if you have ABC in your answer and the syllabus requires ABCD then you only get 75%. Its defined perfectly (as far as i know). Where as the FE1's/law exams in general dont have a "set" marking scheme as such.

I really do think its pointless having % in law exams as the examiner could vary in moods depending on when he has read your paper. Its not going to fluctuate massively but i have seen people get 5%-10% difference in a result where they effectively have the exact same answer.
It happened me in college. My buddy got 70% and i got 68 (difference between a 1:1 and a 2:1) and we effectively had the same answer. Wording was different obviously but our use of the English language was fairly similar, we had the same cases used and alot of the same sources.

I could be wrong though there could have been something major that stuck out to the examiner but my friend and I couldnt see anything.

_JOE_

Brian Foley made an excellent post on the marking of the FE-1 exams this time last year i think. 100% on the money.

Perhaps he might dig it up.

JCJCJC

pansoul wrote: »

I was thinking the other day it'd be interesting to see the results if some lecturer anonymously took the exams;

I have been thinking along similar lines. I know maybe thirty practising solicitors and five or six barristers on the south western circuit, all of them razor-sharp in their own fields. Every one of them would have failed last week's EU exam abysmally, I am certain of that.

JC

rick flair

Mareva Injunctions
Anton Piller Orders
Specific Performance
Estoppel
Trusteeship

I do not know how you could leave out any of the above, the last 3 are bread and butter of an Equity exam.Especially Estoppel and Marvea

Orla FitzP

brian__foley wrote: »

Yes...massively so. Its nothing to do with policy. To pass you'd need 250/500 and on three questions thats 83 each and, no disrepect intended, but you're not about to get that.

ok i was just wondering what your odds were if you didnt finish the paper! :eek:

mariaod

Question for people doing property.

In relation to Co-Ownership, Can a judgment mortgagee of REGISTERED land apply for an order to the court for partition or sale in lieu of partition.

under the new act, technically only a person with an estate or interest in land can do so and this includes judgment mortgagees.
however registration of a judgment mortgage over REGISTERED LAND does not involve a transfer of the debtors estate or interest.

is the position stilll different in relation to registered and unregistered land.

Please someone help if they know the answer. its driving me crazy!!!

ilovelamp2000

rick flair wrote: »

Mareva Injunctions
Anton Piller Orders
Specific Performance
Estoppel
Trusteeship

I do not know how you could leave out any of the above, the last 3 are bread and butter of an Equity exam.Especially Estoppel and Marvea

Leave out those two bolded ones.

doing

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Leave out those two bolded ones.

why do you say that?

Jev/N

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Leave out those two bolded ones.

Specific Performance is a very handy question if it comes up though

doing

If any of you had to make an educated guess what the 5 most likely topics to come up are what would they be?

2ndtimer

Can anyone fill me on recent developments in detention periods following arrest as ive an old manual and am not quite sure. Also any info on recent developments on inferences from silence would be great.

Thanks guys

Sarahaw

Equity Q2 today.....wa that undue influence?? I had no choice but to answer this question, I wrote about class 1, class 2A and class 2B undue influence including the cases regarding wives assuring their husbands debts!?!

Please put me out of my misery! cant study for criminal until I know!!

Thirdfox

It was presumed undue influence.

So Class 2A/B is what's needed (in my opinion) and an analysis of how that reflects what the judge said 1. exercising independent will 2. public policy.

Thought equity was a very nice paper - let's see if I still think that come results time.

"we must move forwards, not back, upwards not forwards and always spiralling, spiralling, spiralling towards Criminal law!"

ElmoLaw

QUES: how is it decided if you will be tried in the district court or the circuit court?
as i understand-both are courts of limited and local jurisdiction- and try only summary offenses. district court only has judge whereas circuit has judge and jury when it is a court of first instance and also has appellate jurisdiction in that it can hear appeals. so my question is- if Z was tried for a minor offense - in what instances would he be heard before the district court and what instances would he be before the circuit courts......

Thanks a mill!!!