FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

RebelScorned

Constitutional law has been the bane of my life for the last few weeks. All the FE1s are a gamble, you can only study so much for them so inevitably you leave out a few topics- i am so uneasy with the constitutional gamble tho. From talking to people who have sat the exams before- the advice is always the same. Quality not quantity when it comes to answering the questions and the examiner likes to see independent thoughts as opposed to rote learning. One of my friends could only do three good questions and was absolutely gutted- she still passed. I'm doing my first four exams and honestly i considered going hell for leather studying for the other three just to make sure i dont have to repeat all four in Sept- esp since i have a training contract lined up due to start in May 2012! Too much pressure!

In my dream paper i will be asked- any aspect of trial in due course of law, property rights, right to privacy, SOP and non delegation doctrine and President/Art 26. A girl can dream!

PS I totally regret not doing a course- i spent the whole entire weekend on bailii and westlaw because my 'trusty' Casey text is archaic and the last ten years have been a constitutional volcano!

Hogzy

I find it very hard to believe that someone could pass with only doing 3 questions. You would nearly need to get 95% in all three in order to pass. Hard to do

law_lady

@RebelScorned, I felt the same way about Equity when I was doing my first 4 (though now looking back it seems lovely compared to Constitutional and EU, but I'm sure that's partly due to my fading memory!) and I was so sure coming out of the exam that I had failed it. The only thing to do is to do equal work for all 4, because if you rely on 3 you're absolutely screwed if you get one bad paper, and make sure to draw a line under each one so that a disappointing day in one subject doesn't upset you for the next one.

As for leaving out topics, I think that's a fact of life with FE1s. What I have done is done as much as I feel I'm capable of learning, basing it off what was common on past papers, and then inevitably there is another topic or two which is left out the night before because my head can't fit anymore. We can only do our best.

I've left out stuff like Art 45, The Preamble, Interpretation, The Family and Education and Emergency Powers. I know its a gamble, esp family, but can't have it all. How does that compare with what others have left out? Also I've done notes on Personal Liberty but it doesn't seem common on papers so I'm tempted to leave that too.

I didn't do a course either but I reckon if I had, I'd have spent far too long watching lectures, thinking that was learning, and ended up even worse off than I am now. I agree the last ten years have shown major developments though. Try checking out the Sunday Business Post online, they have nice little articles on recent developments in the law on subjects such as the Civil Partnership Act and Ivor Callely's case.

RebelScorned

@hogzy- My friend did three good questions and attempted the other two going on only what little she remembered from undergrad const module and using the copy of the constitution she brought in with her. She said she was sorely tempted to throw it all in but fight or flight kicked in, she tried and it was enough to earn a pass and at the end of the day, as long as you get 50 in each exam, you are in the clover.

@law_lady- thanks for your advice re studying for four instead of focusing on three and winging the last one. It does seem like a crazy gamble to take. I am also sitting contract, criminal and equity. I have everything ready for equity and criminal- just have to start learning but i am very much a crammer- however, I have pretty much neglected contract law so far because i have been all caught up with constitutional. I too am leaving out certain things and bulletpointing a few more that i don't feel too hot about- i just cannot absorb that much info to the detriment of other topics. That really sounds like fighting talk but i dont feel too brave- inside i am bricking it :-(

steph86

frustratedTC wrote: »

So as all of u who are doing tort know its incredibly long and im just wondering if ive covered enough basicially i'm soing

Principles of neg
res ipsa loquiter
professional neg
employers liability
VL
Economic loss
psych damage
product liability
passing off
defamation
trespass to the person
trespass to land
nuissance

Also has anyone heard what might be tipped?

im doing the same as you. i'm gonna have an idea of damages as wel just incase. there really isnt much you can leave out of tort to be fair.
I'm more worried about property and contract. my first four and i've been focusing so much on tort and eu kinda forgot about them. This time three weeks we'll be exam and stress free. Come fri 1st april i am on the beer for the whole weekend!

ShindyB

Hogzy wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe that someone could pass with only doing 3 questions. You would nearly need to get 95% in all three in order to pass. Hard to do

Well believe it cause it's true. I only answered 3. Genuinely. I'm not bull****ting you. I left the exam at 11 20 fully expecting to be repeating it. Got 50 on the nose but couldn't care less because I actually passed the thing.

Dylan123

As we all know succession is a big area and can come up in various ways.

Does anyone have an ideas on how it is more likely to come up later this month?

JCJCJC

coco13 wrote: »

Did Property last time round and this was highlighted as one of the big trick questions to watch for.. Construction = Interpretation. Its a mistake students make every year and you wont get any points for discussing how to make a valid will if asked to discuss the Construction of Wills!

Construction = how it is construed, not how it's built. Construing only arises after the dude is well dead and there's some uncertainty about what he meant by the wording of his will. Discuss the armchair principle, plain ordinary meaning, admissability of extrinsic evidence etc, a few cases like in re Julian and you're home and dry.

Wrestling with trusts/trustees/charities here myself for the past few days. It's half the course in equity so it can't be ignored I think.

Edit - reasonably good case law on construction here, look at para 79. http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1999/210.html

Dylan123

I am led to believe that marks are given segmented into areas such as:
(1) Issue
(2) Law
(3) Application
(4) Conclusion

Or

(1) Intro
(2) Main
(3) Conclusion

What if the answer is good in the beginning and there is no time for a conclusion? do the markers have to award marks for a conclusion?

Also am i over simplifying this to say that:
(1) Objective is fact
(2) Subjective is opinion

JCJCJC

Dylan123 wrote: »

I am led to believe that marks are given segmented into areas such as:
(1) Issue
(2) Law
(3) Application
(4) Conclusion

Or

(1) Intro
(2) Main
(3) Conclusion

What if the answer is good in the beginning and there is no time for a conclusion? do the markers have to award marks for a conclusion?

Also am i over simplifying this to say that:
(1) Objective is fact
(2) Subjective is opinion

Issues/Law/Application/Conclusion is the essay problem structure we were taught in UL. It's a useful template to make sure you analyse the problem correctly. I don't know that it reflects the marking system though. From what I have gathered, I would say that for the FE1s do less dusty old 19th century law and academic comment in the law section and more very fresh case law. Do much more in the application section and reach a conclusion for the advisee.

Objective/subjective refers to applying tests. Objective means what would a reasonable person think or do in a given situation. Subjective means what would the person in question think or do in the same situation.

frustratedTC

Hey,
Hope study going well!Just wondering if anyone has Philip Bourkes (IC) night before notes for equity from last sitting, i can exchange notes with you for tort, equity contract or criminal?

JoannN

Hi guys,

Just wondering if someone has the night before notes in Constitutional, EU or Tort from IC....and is willing to swap for criminal night before notes (and others of my own typed condensed notes from the manuals if you want - just PM me)

REALLY desperate for constitutional in particular! I think we are all in the same boat

Dylan123

If a will is frustrated because:
- The witnesses Wife was left a gift......Will that mean the whole will fails or does it mean that, the specific gift goes into the remainder of the estate?

Hogzy

Does anyone know if a question, in regards damages in the case of a declaration of unconstitutionality of an act, has ever been asked before in Constitutional?


Also does anyone have any good articles on the human persons doctrine?

itsmol

Can someone reassure me that if I do

Adverse Possession,
Easements and Profits,
Co-Ownership,
Succession,
Family Property
Licences
Convenants
& Mortgages

That Im doing enough? Or are there other Topics that I should be considering???:eek: i.e Landlord and Tenant?

akom

Does anyone know what are the more likely of sections from due course of law & due process to appear on the paper?? The material isn't too bad to understand etc..there's just so much to wade through!

JCJCJC

Dylan123 wrote: »

If a will is frustrated because:
- The witnesses Wife was left a gift......Will that mean the whole will fails or does it mean that, the specific gift goes into the remainder of the estate?

Court will do all it can to uphold the will, so the witnessing takes precedeice over the gift. The gift must fail - the will must prevail. Gift goes off into residue.

JCJCJC

itsmol wrote: »

Can someone reassure me that if I do

Adverse Possession,
Easements and Profits,
Co-Ownership,
Succession,
Family Property
Licences
Convenants
& Mortgages

That Im doing enough? Or are there other Topics that I should be considering???:eek: i.e Landlord and Tenant?

I'd include treasure trove, easy to do, a no-brainer if you can remember the cases, and it does come up. Webb is the only significant Irish case and it will serve you well, you'll get prom estpl out of it and crown prerogative doctrine also.

Podge007

fe1sagain wrote: »

Just wondering if this changes anything re citizenship. Did the Chen case not already provide a right for non eu parents of citizens to have residence under the 2004 Directive?

Any thoughts?

I was studying this today and the same thought crossed my mind having already seen this article. I suppose you could just throw down t
he case to show you're aware of it. I think this case is dealing more with TCNs though rather than the Chen case which is dealing with Art 7 1 b

law_lady

akom wrote: »

Does anyone know what are the more likely of sections from due course of law & due process to appear on the paper?? The material isn't too bad to understand etc..there's just so much to wade through!

Hey, just going from past papers, I'd say the more likely candidates are:
- Presumption of Innocence
- Right to Silence
- Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence
- Access to Legal Advice
- Pre-Trial Publicity
- Right to Speedy Trial

I know that may seem like its not cutting down much but when you take them one at a time they're really small and actually kind of interesting, unlike all that SOP stuff!!

Anyone have any advice as to what type of points one would include in a general separation of powers essay? I've covered all the material and I can do the problem questions on non-delegation doctrine, non-justiciability, etc. but when it comes to the more general questions I'm at a loss as to how to make a coherent set of points!! Would you just briefly mention aspects such as non-delegation, non-justiciability, criminal matters, and comment on the effectiveness of each in maintaining a balance of power? So confused!!

doing

Anyone have an exam gid for Property? Or even just tell me which are the ones that usually come up?

Dylan123

~In relation to the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 what do we need to know?

~Also in the case of AIB v Finnegan what was held in the end???- as it was a family home - and it states he would have to prove that he didnt know it was a family home..... s 3 (6) Family Home Protection act 1976.. Doctrine of notice

Dylan123

JCJCJC wrote: »

I'd include treasure trove, easy to do, a no-brainer if you can remember the cases, and it does come up. Webb is the only significant Irish case and it will serve you well, you'll get prom estpl out of it and crown prerogative doctrine also.

Estates in land is a banker? saying that i am not focussing on it

akom

law_lady wrote: »

Hey, just going from past papers, I'd say the more likely candidates are:
- Presumption of Innocence
- Right to Silence
- Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence
- Access to Legal Advice
- Pre-Trial Publicity
- Right to Speedy Trial

I know that may seem like its not cutting down much but when you take them one at a time they're really small and actually kind of interesting, unlike all that SOP stuff!!

Anyone have any advice as to what type of points one would include in a general separation of powers essay? I've covered all the material and I can do the problem questions on non-delegation doctrine, non-justiciability, etc. but when it comes to the more general questions I'm at a loss as to how to make a coherent set of points!! Would you just briefly mention aspects such as non-delegation, non-justiciability, criminal matters, and comment on the effectiveness of each in maintaining a balance of power? So confused!!

Thanks a million...yea it is fairly interesting alright...makes a change doesn't it

As for your q's on SOP general answer..im kind of the same..as im learning it off im hoping to withdraw a make a note of the most important aspects..i know there are a lot but we'll know what would form into a decent structured essay..we will!!

Horndawg

Does anyone know if there's a pedestrian walkway/bridge going from the red cow luas stop back across the M50 to the hotel?

trixabelle86

Horndawg wrote: »

Does anyone know if there's a pedestrian walkway/bridge going from the red cow luas stop back across the M50 to the hotel?

The mad cow roundabout is a bit of a maze...but I think so. I'm staying over across the road in the IBIS one of the nights and the bus from Carlow drops me off across the road so I'm hoping I can get across without being run over

frustratedTC

For those of u wading through tort, how are u approaching neg, its bleedin massive!Any 1 know wat the important areas of it?

trixabelle86

frustratedTC wrote: »

For those of u wading through tort, how are u approaching neg, its bleedin massive!Any 1 know wat the important areas of it?

Important areas of Negligence? Well... its all important. If you skip any negligence you're kinda screwed.
Duty of Care - Donoghue v Stevenson - the development of proximity and reasonable forseeability blah blah through Anns and the two step test, then Caparo and the incremental approach.
The Irish Development of DoC - taking a broad approach of Doc in Donoghue and welcoming the decision of Anns. Then Ward v McMaster.
Junior Books Case
Glencar Decision
Caparo usually adopted in Ire, although the courts haven't ruled out Anns like they have in Eng.

Then you have standard of Care - reasonable man test
Objective Test
Principles to Determine the standard of care:
- probability of accident, gravity of threatened inujury, cost of eliminating the risk, social utility of def's conduct.
Cases: O'Gorman v Ritz Cinema
Whooley v Dublin Corp
Paris v Stpney Borough Council
Bradley v CIE

Causation - Cause in fact and cause in law
Factual Causation - the 'but for' test
Kenny O'rourke
Barrnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC
Geoghegan v Harris (overlaps with medical negligence)

material elements test
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw
McGhee v National Coal Board
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (NB)
Quinn v Mid Western Health Board & Oths (NB)

Legal Causation - simultaneous Legal Causes
Lambton v Mellish
successive causes
Baker v Willoughby
Jobing v Associated Dairies

Novus Actus Interveniens
Crowley v AIB & OFlynn
Smith v Industrial Gases IFS Ltd
Hayes v Minister for Finance
Connolly v South of Ireland Asphalt Co Ltd

Then Res Ipsa Loquitur comes into it
Scott v London and St. Katherine Docks Co
Hanrahan v Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Ltd
Lyndsay v Mid Western Health Board
O'Shea v Tilman Arnold (Pegasus Case)
Foley v Quinnsworth
Cosgrove v ESB

Remoteness
Re Polemis

Reasonable Forseeability
The Wagon Mound
Egan v Sisk
Thin Skull Rule/Egg shell skull - Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd
Reeves v. Carthy & O'Kelly
Impecunious Plaintiff - Riordan's Travel Ltd v Acres & Co
Rabbette v Mayo Co

Thats all there is to general negligence. Remember Duty - Breach - Causation - Damage

05588081

Just wondering would anybody have a copy of the TORT and CONSTITUTIONAL Exam papers from the last sitting and the Examiners reports in both for the last two sittings.

If anyone has them in an online format, I would really appreciate if you could e-mail them on.

Thanks

bob_lob_law

trixabelle86 wrote: »

Important areas of Negligence? Well... its all important. If you skip any negligence you're kinda screwed.
Duty of Care - Donoghue v Stevenson - the development of proximity and reasonable forseeability blah blah through Anns and the two step test, then Caparo and the incremental approach.
The Irish Development of DoC - taking a broad approach of Doc in Donoghue and welcoming the decision of Anns. Then Ward v McMaster.
Junior Books Case
Glencar Decision
Caparo usually adopted in Ire, although the courts haven't ruled out Anns like they have in Eng.

Then you have standard of Care - reasonable man test
Objective Test
Principles to Determine the standard of care:
- probability of accident, gravity of threatened inujury, cost of eliminating the risk, social utility of def's conduct.
Cases: O'Gorman v Ritz Cinema
Whooley v Dublin Corp
Paris v Stpney Borough Council
Bradley v CIE

Causation - Cause in fact and cause in law
Factual Causation - the 'but for' test
Kenny O'rourke
Barrnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC
Geoghegan v Harris (overlaps with medical negligence)

material elements test
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw
McGhee v National Coal Board
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (NB)
Quinn v Mid Western Health Board & Oths (NB)

Legal Causation - simultaneous Legal Causes
Lambton v Mellish
successive causes
Baker v Willoughby
Jobing v Associated Dairies

Novus Actus Interveniens
Crowley v AIB & OFlynn
Smith v Industrial Gases IFS Ltd
Hayes v Minister for Finance
Connolly v South of Ireland Asphalt Co Ltd

Then Res Ipsa Loquitur comes into it
Scott v London and St. Katherine Docks Co
Hanrahan v Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Ltd
Lyndsay v Mid Western Health Board
O'Shea v Tilman Arnold (Pegasus Case)
Foley v Quinnsworth
Cosgrove v ESB

Remoteness
Re Polemis

Reasonable Forseeability
The Wagon Mound
Egan v Sisk
Thin Skull Rule/Egg shell skull - Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd
Reeves v. Carthy & O'Kelly
Impecunious Plaintiff - Riordan's Travel Ltd v Acres & Co
Rabbette v Mayo Co

Thats all there is to general negligence. Remember Duty - Breach - Causation - Damage

Bit of a silly question - at what point can you say the defendant has been negligent? Once duty and breach have been established, right? I'm just doubting myself here.