FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

solicitor?

Hogzy wrote: »

Its too late. The deadline to sign up has passed AGES ago. You will have to wait till October

i've registered to do them. I know you have to pass three the first time, and i was just wondering was i foolish to try and pass the four since i've only started studing today?

Hogzy

solicitor? wrote: »

i've registered to do them. I know you have to pass three the first time, and i was just wondering was i foolish to try and pass the four since i've only started studing today?

Oh well in that case it depends on how dedicated you are. If it were me i would struggle to pass two in the time frame you have.
It depends on how good you are at cramming tbh

Dylan123

solicitor? wrote: »

i've registered to do them. I know you have to pass three the first time, and i was just wondering was i foolish to try and pass the four since i've only started studying today?

-Just out of curiosity, could you define, or elaborate on the above, in what you mean by starting studying today? I take it you know something about these areas/ topics already?.....

(a) I could study Law for 10 years then stop for 3 months and then say i am starting study today.
(b) I could completely chance my arm and never pick up a book about Law and try and start 3 weeks before professional exams and take a risk.

-If your circumstance is that of (A) go for 4
-If your circumstance is that of (B) go for 3
If u are repeting all 4 ...go for 4..

persistent

persistent wrote: »

Anyone know what time Tort tutorial in Independent Colleges is on at on Sat/Sun?

Thanks.

Anyone have an answer?

CFOLEY85

persistent wrote: »

Anyone have an answer?

Almost sure that was on this morning from 9 - 11am. But they hold seminars too. Not sure when they are on though

T.Watson

Just wondering if there are any topics/areas of EU that could be partially/fully left out or narrowed down without completely cutting down one's options in the exam?

Are there any "banker" topics or areas the examiner particularly likes? I know this is all people's opinion and guess work but any thoughts on it would be great cause I don't think I'll have time to cover the whole course and not sure what areas are my best bet. Many thanks

Hogzy

T.Watson wrote: »

Just wondering if there are any topics/areas of EU that could be partially/fully left out or narrowed down without completely cutting down one's options in the exam?

Are there any "banker" topics or areas the examiner particularly likes? I know this is all people's opinion and guess work but any thoughts on it would be great cause I don't think I'll have time to cover the whole course and not sure what areas are my best bet. Many thanks

Oh my god just go through the thread. This question has been asked like 100 times. For a law student you dont do much 'research' do you?

faubo

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone could help me with question 6(i) from last sitting's EU paper. Apologies if this has been asked - I couldn't find anything on it. I can't work out whether the charge comes under Article 30 or 110. The question doesn't specifically mention any imported energy sources, but the 'green energy promotion levy' is only available to electricity generated from renewable energy sources within the state. This strikes me as similar to Commission v Italy where a tax advantage was only granted to regenerated oil from Italy and was held to be direct discrimination under Art 110. Does that seem right or is it an Article 30 charge?

I'd appreciate any thoughts! He often asks questions twice in a row, so I'd like to know if I'm on the right track.

Thanks!

db707

Hi, did a course at GCD for Sep Crim exam but failed!!! Any new cases/law I should be aware of for this sitting?

JoannN

Hi all,

I am trying to get my head around easements, but I think it may just get the better of me. I have a question relating to the problem question April 2007 Q4; Why, in the examiner reports, does the examiner not refer to the Rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows when he is talking about prescription in relation to the water pipe? I have a feeling that I am missing something incredibly easy...is it to do with the fact that the land sold to Tim is the servient land (and for Wheeldon to work, the land sold must be the dominant?)

And also - why is the Prescription Act excluded? Would there have always had to be diversity of ownership in order for it to apply...sorry cant find this anywhere!

I hope someone can help!
Thanks so much in advance!

JoannN

solicitor? wrote: »

just started studying for criminal, company, constitutional and eu today. did not realise how much work was involved. is it realistic to try and pass all four or should i focus on just three?

I would say you have picked the wrong subjects to try and cram the material needed in the time left (assuming you have literally just opened the books at this stage), but you don't really have anything to lose at this stage. Definitely leave one of them out (do criminal your best 2 of the other 3)...and put your head down i.e. switch off all means of communication and literally kust eat the books for the next 2.5 weeks; with some good topic choices and a LOT of luck, it could be doable (imo!)

Best of luck!

JCJCJC

solicitor? wrote: »

just started studying for criminal, company, constitutional and eu today. did not realise how much work was involved. is it realistic to try and pass all four or should i focus on just three?

If it's your first run at the FE1s, you'll know that you must get three to carry any result forward. Passing just two is a pita, I've been there and many other regular posters here have too. Assuming it's your first run - because if it wasn't I think you wouldn't be asking the question - I would suggest pick your best three. Criminal and Constitutional have some points in common so I would say do those, but the other two are huge subjects - pick your best of those two. Remember you must show up for your fourth, just go in and sign on. You can read your Blackstones or Companies' Acts to pass the time, it'll all help in the end.

Edit - and use manuals at this stage, you haven't the time for weighty texts. There's a different thread for hawking and huckstering in manuals, we are all 'way above that sort of thing here ;-)

JCJCJC

JoannN wrote: »

Hi all,

I am trying to get my head around easements, but I think it may just get the better of me. I have a question relating to the problem question April 2007 Q4; Why, in the examiner reports, does the examiner not refer to the Rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows when he is talking about prescription in relation to the water pipe? I have a feeling that I am missing something incredibly easy...is it to do with the fact that the land sold to Tim is the servient land (and for Wheeldon to work, the land sold must be the dominant?)

And also - why is the Prescription Act excluded? Would there have always had to be diversity of ownership in order for it to apply...sorry cant find this anywhere!

I hope someone can help!
Thanks so much in advance!

I haven't the examiner's report but I have the question.

You aren't asking about Tim's use of the garden, only the pipe issue, ok? I'll have a go at that.

The legal right to maintain a pipeline through someone else's land, often called a pipeline wayleave, is one of a number of rights over land, collectively known in law as an easement.

(Say something about the general characteristics and attributes),

The person having the benefit of the pipe doesn't own the land through which it passes. The particular type of easement is an easement of necessity - the availability of water is clearly essential for Karen's enjoyment in law of her house.

The question is - prior to Karen's purchase, had Aoife established an easement of necessity over her former house 'Homeville', now owned by Tim. Karen purchased Aoife's interest in 'Twin Peaks' - did that interest include the easement through what is now Tim's land.
While no express grant of the easement appears in the conveyance, the law also recognises a means of creation of easements by implication. Several types of easement can be created by implication - rights of access, rights of support Latimer's case, etc, and in this case we are arguing on one ground for the creation of a pipeline wayleave by implication.

Easements can also be implied if they are necessary to carry out the common intention of the parties. It would be reasonable to argue that Tim bought 'Homeville' from Aoife on the basis of a common understanding that 'Twin Peaks' was to continue to be used as a dwelling and therefore the water supply thereto was logically part of the common intention in the contract. Thus, an easement in Aoife's favour was implied, and this ran with the dominant tenement when it was subsequently sold to Karen, and that is our second ground.

Section 6 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 says that easements run with the land in a conveyance, so Karen got whatever Aoife was entitled to.

~~~(dates always appear in a problem for a reason) ~~~Easement can be acquired by prescription - look that up, it's straightforward maths, if the period of user is long enough. Warning bells ring, the thick plottens, cue spooky music in a minor key - Tim bought in 1987, this is 2006 - 19 years. The period is 20 years. He also hasn't her permission, she has challenged him.

The sum-up is Karen and the water pipe is ok because of the above, Tim's claim to a right of way isn't necessity-based, he hasn't twenty years, so he's on a loser.

She can seek an injunction prohibiting him from digging up her pipes, preventing him building over the wayleave, and restraining him from trespassing, and that should sort it out? She needs to issue her proceedings before Tim has 20 years of user of the right-of-way he is attempting to establish. Maybe the summer-winter thing has to do with continuity of user.

...

That would be my line, on a first blush anyway? I would also check to see if the new Act affects matters, that was a pre-act question.

trixabelle86

Heya!
I'm just going through what I'm gonna really jam into my head here for the Tort exam. I'm gonna read over the whole manual, so hopefully everything will be familiar to me, but in terms of knowing things inside out I was thinking:

-Ordinary negligence
-Duty of Care
-Causation and Remoteness
-Res Ipsa
-Medical Negligence
-Other Professional Neg
-Nervous Shock
-Employers Liability
-Vicarious Liability
-Occupiers Liability, Tresspass, Nuisance and Rylands
-Products Liability
-Defamation
-Passing Off
-Defences
-Remedies
and
-Limitation Periods

Thoughts?

JCJCJC

trixabelle86 wrote: »

Heya!
I'm just going through what I'm gonna really jam into my head here for the Tort exam. I'm gonna read over the whole manual, so hopefully everything will be familiar to me, but in terms of knowing things inside out I was thinking:

-Ordinary negligence
-Duty of Care
-Causation and Remoteness
-Res Ipsa
-Medical Negligence
-Other Professional Neg
-Nervous Shock
-Employers Liability
-Vicarious Liability
-Occupiers Liability, Tresspass, Nuisance and Rylands
-Products Liability
-Defamation
-Passing Off
-Defences
-Remedies
and
-Limitation Periods

Thoughts?

That should be loads. If you want to look at anything else, look at animal torts, it's easy, it has come up and there are only a few simple concepts, a few acts and a few cases. Derwin sets out most of the common law. Know about ferae naturae and scienter.

JoannN

JCJCJC wrote: »

I haven't the examiner's report but I have the question.

You aren't asking about Tim's use of the garden, only the pipe issue, ok? I'll have a go at that.

The legal right to maintain a pipeline through someone else's land, often called a pipeline wayleave, is one of a number of rights over land, collectively known in law as an easement.

(Say something about the general characteristics and attributes),

The person having the benefit of the pipe doesn't own the land through which it passes. The particular type of easement is an easement of necessity - the availability of water is clearly essential for Karen's enjoyment in law of her house.

The question is - prior to Karen's purchase, had Aoife established an easement of necessity over her former house 'Homeville', now owned by Tim. Karen purchased Aoife's interest in 'Twin Peaks' - did that interest include the easement through what is now Tim's land.
While no express grant of the easement appears in the conveyance, the law also recognises a means of creation of easements by implication. Several types of easement can be created by implication - rights of access, rights of support Latimer's case, etc, and in this case we are arguing on one ground for the creation of a pipeline wayleave by implication.

Easements can also be implied if they are necessary to carry out the common intention of the parties. It would be reasonable to argue that Tim bought 'Homeville' from Aoife on the basis of a common understanding that 'Twin Peaks' was to continue to be used as a dwelling and therefore the water supply thereto was logically part of the common intention in the contract. Thus, an easement in Aoife's favour was implied, and this ran with the dominant tenement when it was subsequently sold to Karen, and that is our second ground.

Section 6 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 says that easements run with the land in a conveyance, so Karen got whatever Aoife was entitled to.

~~~(dates always appear in a problem for a reason) ~~~Easement can be acquired by prescription - look that up, it's straightforward maths, if the period of user is long enough. Warning bells ring, the thick plottens, cue spooky music in a minor key - Tim bought in 1987, this is 2006 - 19 years. The period is 20 years. He also hasn't her permission, she has challenged him.

The sum-up is Karen and the water pipe is ok because of the above, Tim's claim to a right of way isn't necessity-based, he hasn't twenty years, so he's on a loser.

She can seek an injunction prohibiting him from digging up her pipes, preventing him building over the wayleave, and restraining him from trespassing, and that should sort it out? She needs to issue her proceedings before Tim has 20 years of user of the right-of-way he is attempting to establish. Maybe the summer-winter thing has to do with continuity of user.

...

That would be my line, on a first blush anyway? I would also check to see if the new Act affects matters, that was a pre-act question.

I am thinking roughly the same thing BUT the question was set in 2007...therefore the 20yr period could arguably have been completed in Jan 2007 when Karen's shower unit broke and she found out that the water pipes ran through Tim's garden. The fact that there is no oral or written consent is supportive of the fact that the Prescription Acts can be used; therefore if Tim can prove that he used the pipe without force, secrecy and permission for 20 yrs...then the Prescription Acts could apply..??
What am I missing here?? (the new act wouldnt affect this, its not retrospective) What is the comment in the examiners report re:"NO assistance from Prescription Act because of common ownership..." about?

Thanks!

frustratedTC

Hi just wondering if someone could explain to me Owens v. Greene in resulting trusts in equity?

frustratedTC

Could anyone actually just explain illegality and rebutting presumed resulting trusts to me, i'm very confused!

chopser

frustratedTC wrote: »

Hi just wondering if someone could explain to me Owens v. Greene in resulting trusts in equity?

From what I gather the S.C held that it was not enough that the account was opened with the intention that the other named person would receive the benefit of the money after the death of the transferor.
The person needed to have an intention to give the other named person the rights to use the account from the outset and not solely to gain an interest after the transferors death.
if this was not evident then a resulting trust would arise.

That decision was used by Justice O'Hanlon in lynch -v- Burke in the High Court. His decision was subsequently overturned in the Supreme Court who looked to the intention of the donor and that both signing of the initial forms was also evidence of the intention.

05588081

For those of you who have not yet booked and need accom for the exams, I have just booked into the Green Isle Hotel which is a bit out the road from the Red Cow. If people quote "Law Society of Irl" they will do a discounted rate of €49 per room per night (or €59 including breakfast). The girls name is Gillian in the Reservations Dept. Her number is 01 412 3701.

trixabelle86

05588081 wrote: »

For those of you who have not yet booked and need accom for the exams, I have just booked into the Green Isle Hotel which is a bit out the road from the Red Cow. If people quote "Law Society of Irl" they will do a discounted rate of €49 per room per night (or €59 including breakfast). The girls name is Gillian in the Reservations Dept. Her number is 01 412 3701.

I'm in the Ibis across the road for €43 for the night in a superior queen room...la de da! Not that I can take advantage of it though, i'll be stressing over company the next day

chopser

Anybody got the last Eu examiners report? what if anything did it say about the difficulty of the last exam and about examining niche topics?
also was the question on procedures about preliminary reference procedure.

any help greatly appreciated.

Pat.Kenny

T.Watson wrote: »

Just wondering if there are any topics/areas of EU that could be partially/fully left out or narrowed down without completely cutting down one's options in the exam?

Are there any "banker" topics or areas the examiner particularly likes? I know this is all people's opinion and guess work but any thoughts on it would be great cause I don't think I'll have time to cover the whole course and not sure what areas are my best bet. Many thanks

I think institutions didn't come up on the paper last time out which would have been a bit of a suprise, so that would be an area worth covering. Competition is quite long but there's also usually a question on that.

The examiner does seem to have some 'thing' about the Brussels Regulation and Transparency so it might be worth getting a hold of his report and having a read to see if there are any pointers in it.

randomchild

Hey lads just studying for my last exam, property now. 2 questions:

1. In the LCRLA's bill form it was stated that rent is vital to a lease. Did this make it into the act itself?

2. Leaving out mortgages, yay or nay? (Have everything else in the course studied but am kind of struggling with this topic)

3. Does anyone know what the story is with handing up legislation on the day of the exam? Do not really fancy going to the red cow the day before the exam just to have to hand up the succession act...

Cheers in advance and thank you for supplying such a lovely thread, it was a massive help in navigating these exams!

Hogzy

randomchild wrote: »

Hey lads just studying for my last exam, property now. 2 questions:

1. In the LCRLA's bill form it was stated that rent is vital to a lease. Did this make it into the act itself?

Its not vital, as in its not a determining factor but its will more than likely be a lease if there is rent 'of some kind'.

db707

db707 wrote: »

Hi, did a course at GCD for Sep Crim exam but failed!!! Any new cases/law I should be aware of for this sitting?

Guess nothing then??

StressHead!

Hey! New to this thread so apologies if my questions are a bit repetitive!
I'm getting a bit overwhelmed by the volume of material to be learned for the EU exam so I was just wondering has anyone heard the Griffith or Independent predictions yet?

randomchild

Hogzy wrote: »

Its not vital, as in its not a determining factor but its will more than likely be a lease if there is rent 'of some kind'.

Any idea what section its in?

Hogzy

randomchild wrote: »

Any idea what section its in?

Havnt got a clue.
I am basing my statement on S3 of Deasys Act which only requires rent to be considered if deciding Lease over license

Just thinking i could be wrong thought. I do know that in the Gatien Motor Company case Kenny J said that the lack of rent paid was the deciding factor in saying that it was a license and not a lease but in that case he paid due regards to ALL the circumstances.
Im going to have a quick flick through the LCRA '09 and see what i can find

frustratedTC

Does anybody if in relation to Prodcut liability whether under the CL duty to warn or under the Liability for Defective Products Act 1991 a manufacturer is required to print instructions in a few languages?