FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

cd.galway

This sitting I sat con and eu..having got 3/4 first time and 3/3 second sitting. thought con was tough but may have scraped it but eu was appalling!!! really struggled with time the d.e ms liability, state aid/comp question took me an hour to do, though equality was long too so i just really struggle to get things done within the time limit we have per question
i never did a prep course as i feel..why should I have to??! After 4 years of law in college i think its shocking and thery're laughin all the way to the bank!!!! if i fail these two, i would not dream of doing a prep course talk about abusing their dominant position! also i worked throughout each so to suggest that ive 5 or 6 months to study is a bit of an over exaggeration!!!! what i think needs to be done is just revalue the format of the paper, i feel the examiner for eu is just trying to cram as much in as possible...i feel he just flicks through the contents and goes 'inny meeny mnny mo'. overall i feel the amount of time and preparation was not conducive to the 6hours of exams i sat, just doesn take into account what i knew and i feel why do i bother, those 10 hour study days...why did i put myself through that...
Rant over!!!

JCJCJC

Ruby83 wrote: »

Ok so let me see if the following is correct:
England: per Marylebone, lease can be surrendered by lessee to landlord even though he has been dispossessed and then the landlord has a fresh 12 year period in which he can assert his title so this would mean at the greatest, a squatter could have to be in possession for 24 years?

Ireland: a different approach as per Perry means that the lease continues between the landlord and original lessee even though the lessee has been dispossessed and the lessee has to abide by the original covenants in the lease. Does this mean that for the squatter so long as the lease continues he cannot be in adverse possession as he can always be the subject of forfeiture or what? This is the bit I don't really get.
Think I had this at one point in time but seems to be totally confusing now.

Thanks for explaining though in ur previous note!

Go with Lawlady!

JC

law_lady

NoQuarter wrote: »

So now the squatter must abide by the covenants that were on the lease that he has moved in on. Therefore if he lets say smoked(if it was non smoking on the lease) or if he failed to pay rent (as it would say in the lease) then it may be possible for the landlord to end the lease.

So essentially its like the squatter cant put a foot wrong. An issue arises then as to whether the squatter is entitled to a copy of the lease with the covenants in it so he knows what he must abide by.

My understanding of this last point is that there is no answer or authority on it yet! I think it was just an observation from an academic.

Thanks for that. One last question - so the squatter has to abide by covenants and pay rent. So when does time start to run? From when he ousts the tenant or from when he stops paying rent/breaks a covenant?

Hoping I'm being pedantic and we get a nice Leigh v Jack type question!

NoQuarter

law_lady wrote: »

Thanks for that. One last question - so the squatter has to abide by covenants and pay rent. So when does time start to run? From when he ousts the tenant or from when he stops paying rent/breaks a covenant?

Hoping I'm being pedantic and we get a nice Leigh v Jack type question!

CORRECTION: just a quick edit to say that the time starts to run against the landlord once the lease is up, s.15 Statute of Limitations! my bad :S

One quick question, the 2010 case, mahon v o'reilly, what can we take fro that case?? it seemed very straighforward, im struggling to find an angle to bring it up in the exam!

hession.law

cd.galway wrote: »

This sitting I sat con and eu..having got 3/4 first time and 3/3 second sitting. thought con was tough but may have scraped it but eu was appalling!!! really struggled with time the d.e ms liability, state aid/comp question took me an hour to do, though equality was long too so i just really struggle to get things done within the time limit we have per question
i never did a prep course as i feel..why should I have to??! After 4 years of law in college i think its shocking and thery're laughin all the way to the bank!!!! if i fail these two, i would not dream of doing a prep course talk about abusing their dominant position! also i worked throughout each so to suggest that ive 5 or 6 months to study is a bit of an over exaggeration!!!! what i think needs to be done is just revalue the format of the paper, i feel the examiner for eu is just trying to cram as much in as possible...i feel he just flicks through the contents and goes 'inny meeny mnny mo'. overall i feel the amount of time and preparation was not conducive to the 6hours of exams i sat, just doesn take into account what i knew and i feel why do i bother, those 10 hour study days...why did i put myself through that...
Rant over!!!

I am all for tough exams to weed out the weak because lets face we'll all be competing for work soon enough but EU was not only tough but unfair. Not that I could have answered all the questions on the paper but I could have produced four good answers and attempted the case note question if I had more time. In the back of my mind I know will probably have to repeat and what will I do if the same thing happens next March I'l miss going to BH in September. My problem is that I just can't get the information from my head onto paper fast enough to deal with the multiple issues the examiner throws into every Q I am sure that the correcter is going to go crossed eyed at trying to read my writing!

doing

When you're answering 'advice James' type questions, do they mind if your advice is illegal? EG perjury? For example in criminal in the case of the four lads (Kevin, Liam, James, ??) who broke into Lisa's home I said that James should ask them to lie for him to the court and tell them he'd explicitly told them he wasn't going to be a part of it (cos of that Australian case requiring a 'positive step'). Would the examiner take a dim view of this?

Hogzy

doing wrote: »

When you're answering 'advice James' type questions, do they mind if your advice is illegal? EG perjury? For example in criminal in the case of the four lads (Kevin, Liam, James, ??) who broke into Lisa's home I said that James should ask them to lie for him to the court and tell them he'd explicitly told them he wasn't going to be a part of it (cos of that Australian case requiring a 'positive step'). Would the examiner take a dim view of this?

I would imagine so. You cant go advising people to purge themselves. That would be crazy.

NoQuarter

doing wrote: »

When you're answering 'advice James' type questions, do they mind if your advice is illegal? EG perjury? For example in criminal in the case of the four lads (Kevin, Liam, James, ??) who broke into Lisa's home I said that James should ask them to lie for him to the court and tell them he'd explicitly told them he wasn't going to be a part of it (cos of that Australian case requiring a 'positive step'). Would the examiner take a dim view of this?

HAHAHAHAA, HOLY SH1T!

Is that you Michael Lynn???

law_lady

NoQuarter wrote: »

One quick question, the 2010 case, mahon v o'reilly, what can we take fro that case?? it seemed very straighforward, im struggling to find an angle to bring it up in the exam!

I'm gonna be a bit cheeky and basically just stick it in to show I'm up to date. Its probably most applicable as a recent example of a similar view to Feehan v Leamy I suppose? Maybe? Chance it!

I'm so worried I won't have my 5 Qs from what I've done. I just think I won't get any more learned. I hope I pass obviously but if I have to fail I don't want it to be because I had 4 good questions but no 5th...

Good luck in the morning everyone!

doing

Hogzy wrote: »

I would imagine so. You cant go advising people to purge themselves. That would be crazy.

Well hopefully I'm not going to be blacklisted by the law society now haha. I just threw that in there as an extra option if he's very worried. I mean it's illegal but not immoral as he had no part in the crime and would be facing very serious charges for something he didn't do.

NoQuarter

Well...that was easy!

JCJCJC

doing wrote: »

When you're answering 'advice James' type questions, do they mind if your advice is illegal? EG perjury? For example in criminal in the case of the four lads (Kevin, Liam, James, ??) who broke into Lisa's home I said that James should ask them to lie for him to the court and tell them he'd explicitly told them he wasn't going to be a part of it (cos of that Australian case requiring a 'positive step'). Would the examiner take a dim view of this?

Remember that as a practitioner, you are an officer of the court. You have a positive duty to uphold the administration of justice. I didn't do crim this time but I can infer the scanario from your answer.

I sincerely hope you are joking.

JC

JCJCJC

NoQuarter wrote: »

Well...that was easy!

If you mean property - yes, agreed. Without looking it up, it seemed to be very like the March 2010 paper - bearing out the theory that they are set together. I passed in March, hope it still works. I could have tackled six questions today comfortably, its a good position to be in.
JC

NoQuarter

JCJCJC wrote: »

If you mean property - yes, agreed. Without looking it up, it seemed to be very like the March 2010 paper - bearing out the theory that they are set together. I passed in March, hope it still works. I could have tackled six questions today comfortably, its a good position to be in.
JC

Yeah i only studied 5 topics and got 5 comfortable answers and felt i could hae bluffed the treasure trove question too if i needed to! Pity i more than likely failed my other 3! :rolleyes:

JCJCJC

NoQuarter wrote: »

Yeah i only studied 5 topics and got 5 comfortable answers and felt i could hae bluffed the treasure trove question too if i needed to! Pity i more than likely failed my other 3! :rolleyes:

Hope you get lucky, if not, there's always Grafton St with the guitar! Treasure Trove is a sitting duck, I would always do it, sure there's only one Irish case - Webb - and all the English ones are second nature at this stage, and a few of them concern brooches, jewel and bracelets etc. The only thing to discuss in it was was it buried or on the surface, it makes a small difference, if the National Museum don't want it and you're then trying to decide who keeps it. If it's on the surface, Parker v BA, you keep it. If its buried, it goes with the land - Elwes v Briggs.

JC

boomtown84

hey,can anyone tell me what came up in property today?

cheers.

NoQuarter

boomtown84 wrote: »

hey,can anyone tell me what came up in property today?

cheers.

2 succession questions (poor monica, could anything else bad possibly happen?! )
adverse possession
family property
treasure trove
easements
cant remember the other 2 but they were mixed questions i think, a small part on profit a prendre..

Jev/N

NoQuarter wrote: »

2 succession questions (poor monica, could anything else bad possibly happen?! )
adverse possession
family property
treasure trove
easements
cant remember the other 2 but they were mixed questions i think, a small part on profit a prendre..

That's a nice paper. New examiner seems to be generous! A good note to end on

ilovelamp2000

NoQuarter wrote: »

2 succession questions (poor monica, could anything else bad possibly happen?! )
adverse possession
family property
treasure trove
easements
cant remember the other 2 but they were mixed questions i think, a small part on profit a prendre..

Co-ownership featured in both mixed questions.

Very fair paper again, I think it might be the last FE-1 I ever sit

I thought it was strange that there were only two problem questions.

NoQuarter

Rosco1982 wrote: »

I thought it was strange that there were only two problem questions.

Yeah so did I but my god what a problem question it was, i was expecting him to throw in some defamation and some contract problems at one stage!! :pac:

Every problem under the sun in the succession problem question, a lot on red herrings in there too in my opinion!

JCJCJC

NoQuarter wrote: »

2 succession questions (poor monica, could anything else bad possibly happen?! )
adverse possession
family property
treasure trove
easements
cant remember the other 2 but they were mixed questions i think, a small part on profit a prendre..

Q1 - easements, row, light, support - essay and suggest reform.
Q2 - ap - essay on future use theory
Q3 2/4 survivorship, rights of residence, estoppel licenses, influence of equity
q4 ArB, construction of wills / intestate distribution
Q5 treasure trove problem
Q6 long succession problem, formalities, witnessing, spouse's legal share, moral duty, inter vivos gift (education), dependant relative revocation
Q7 do 2; 4 unities, profits a prendre, joint tenants rights and responsibilities
Q8 - protection of spouses in family property

JC

boomtown84

thanks for that folks!

JCJCJC

law_lady wrote: »

I'm gonna be a bit cheeky and basically just stick it in to show I'm up to date. Its probably most applicable as a recent example of a similar view to Feehan v Leamy I suppose? Maybe? Chance it!

/QUOTE]

That's exactly the point - it shows you are bang up-to-date which the law soc wants, its all over the examiner's report. In college you can be doing a learned traverse through the 18th century cases and they love it, but they want fresher law in the FE1s, its an adjustment. The case was plain bacon-and-cabbage ap, and that's the point - its settled law, Pye v Graham and all the high-wire stuff in Europe hasn't made any difference.

EDIT: and it also makes the point that the paper owner doesn't always win, and successive squats add up.

JC

NoQuarter

JCJCJC wrote: »

The case was plain bacon-and-cabbage ap, and that's the point - its settled law, Pye v Graham and all the high-wire stuff in Europe hasn't made any difference.

JC

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.....

forgot to get it in!

NickDrake

Great to see fair papers this week. I wonder what the hell they were thinking with EU and Tort??

Jev/N

NickDrake wrote: »

Great to see fair papers this week. I wonder what the hell they were thinking with EU and Tort??

I don't think the papers this week were technically fairer, they're just smaller courses.

Criminal had a few surprises and a lack of some big topics for instance. It's not just as noticeable as it's a tiny course.

JCJCJC

NickDrake wrote: »

Great to see fair papers this week. I wonder what the hell they were thinking with EU and Tort??

I thought tort was ok, but I got lucky with animal torts I suppose and a few other things I knew, I certainly didn't know all the course. The EU is giving me nightmares, I just can't retain the crap. If I get my magic three this time, I think I'll try four in the Spring and leave EU on its own, hopefully spend the months trying to grind it into my head. I showed the paper to a solicitor last night, he said he wouldn't know how to attempt even one question, and he has two LLMs and lectured for a while. Imho, the law soc would be better to take it out and substitute something like family law, employment law, environmental and planning law - any of which would be more relevant in 99% of the law offices in Ireland.

Anyway, I'm off for a pint. I mightn't be seen here much until march, hopefully..

JC

Thirdfox

EU is the law to know if nothing else I would argue - it is up there with Constitutional (if not supreme to that already ). All the family, environmental etc stuff may be subject to directive XXX/XX/EC etc. It really is fundamental stuff to anyone who wants to practise in the EU.

Just noticed the tag for this thread "kill me now" - very apt

ilovelamp2000

NoQuarter wrote: »

Yeah so did I but my god what a problem question it was, i was expecting him to throw in some defamation and some contract problems at one stage!! :pac:

Every problem under the sun in the succession problem question, a lot on red herrings in there too in my opinion!

It was very like a number of past questions. I'd done a couple of similar ones so I was happy enough.

I'm a lil drunk now so my memory isn't the best .... I'm guessing by red herrings one of them you're talking about is the daughters s117 rights ?

JCJCJC

Rosco1982 wrote: »

It was very like a number of past questions. I'd done a couple of similar ones so I was happy enough.

I'm a lil drunk now so my memory isn't the best .... I'm guessing by red herrings one of them you're talking about is the daughters s117 rights ?

Why would you think that issue was a red herring? Is there a reason why S117 wouldn't kick in? I go on the basis that generally every given fact in a problem has some relevance, the education referred to the NSM case and might tend to show further academic potential to be nurtured per the ABC case and there is your moral duty argument. My line was that the destruction of the original will was not valid because it wasn't done in her presence, and that then brought in dependent relative revocation which revived it, it was a mistaken attempt at revocation in the belief that she was about to make a new will. I thought the purported new will to the cats and dogs home was the only obvious irrelevant part. Ironic that her own dog probably ended up there ;-)

here's a snip from wiki on dependent relative revocation;

Many jurisdictions exercise an equitable doctrine known as dependent relative revocation ("DRR"). Under this doctrine, courts may disregard a revocation that was based on a mistake of law on the part of the testator as to the effect of the revocation. For example, if a testator mistakenly believes that an earlier will can be revived by the revocation of a later will, the court will ignore the later revocation if the later will comes closer to fulfilling the testator's intent than not having a will at all. The doctrine also applies when a testator executes a second, or new will and revokes his old will under the (mistaken) belief that the new will would be valid. However, if for some reason the new will is not valid and a court may apply the doctrine to reinstate and probate the old will, as the court holds that the testator would prefer the old will to intestate succession.

I might be all wrong, if so please explain to me :cool: