FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Kamilat

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone can tell me what topics came up in company law at the last sitting Oct '10 apart from directors and borrowing?

bob_lob_law

Dylan123 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why there is no mention of novus actus interveniens in this question. Is it because we are asked to advise the person who intervened. (Jack who moved a person from a car crash and drove the scenic rote to the hospital)

Is it because there is:
(1) Duty of care
(2) Breach of duty of care
(3) Injury
(4) Causation

Also would it be right in saying that the people who pass the exam may have varied elements of the law in there answers. (perhaps a few correct ways of looking at things)

Thought that myself, wasn't mentioned in the Griffith sample answer, maybe as you say as you're asked to advise him it was left out - I would have said it anyway. Whether that is advisable or correct is the $64 million question!

steph86

Dylan123 wrote: »

Is the defence of honest opinion a full defence alongside truth?
ps can u walk or drive easily from the ibis to the red cow ???

regarding the Ibis hotel when i booked they said it was within walking distance. 15/ 20 mins and 5 from the luas line. so hopefully it should be fine. A walk before the exams will be good to waken us up abit and be fresh for the exam.

steph86

Hi doing

just a brief outline of the property exam bank in the last 5 sittings
ownership and possession: last three sittings
tenure: didnt come up in 2010 but in both oct/april 09
equity and notice:came up in both sitting last year. nothing 3 sitting before
estates:nothing in 2010 came up in oct/apr 09 and oct 08
reg and unreg land: nothing in 2010 or oct 09. came up in april 09 and oct08
Succession: every year> DO NOT LEAVE OUT
settled land: nothing since march 09 nothing for the 3 sitting before that
co owner:on past 5 sitting. can get a full q and it as a choice in the 2 out of 4 questions on the same paper.
Family: both 2010 sitting. off oct 09 on apr 09
licences: on the past 5 exams
L&T: not on 2010, oct 09 came up not on apr 09 or oct08
covenants: not on 2010, oct 09 came up. not on ap 09 or oct 08
easement and profits: last four sittings
Mortgages: not on last sitting. came up april 10 and both sitting 09
Adverse possession: last 6/7 sittings

Hope that helps.
I'm doing property as well.
I'm doing, ownership, tenure, equity, reg and unreg land, succession, co ownership, family, licences and adverse possesion. mite do covenants in bullet points just in case i get stuck.

doing

steph86 wrote: »

Hi doing

just a brief outline of the property exam bank in the last 5 sittings
ownership and possession: last three sittings
tenure: didnt come up in 2010 but in both oct/april 09
equity and notice:came up in both sitting last year. nothing 3 sitting before
estates:nothing in 2010 came up in oct/apr 09 and oct 08
reg and unreg land: nothing in 2010 or oct 09. came up in april 09 and oct08
Succession: every year> DO NOT LEAVE OUT
settled land: nothing since march 09 nothing for the 3 sitting before that
co owner:on past 5 sitting. can get a full q and it as a choice in the 2 out of 4 questions on the same paper.
Family: both 2010 sitting. off oct 09 on apr 09
licences: on the past 5 exams
L&T: not on 2010, oct 09 came up not on apr 09 or oct08
covenants: not on 2010, oct 09 came up. not on ap 09 or oct 08
easement and profits: last four sittings
Mortgages: not on last sitting. came up april 10 and both sitting 09
Adverse possession: last 6/7 sittings

Hope that helps.
I'm doing property as well.
I'm doing, ownership, tenure, equity, reg and unreg land, succession, co ownership, family, licences and adverse possesion. mite do covenants in bullet points just in case i get stuck.

Cheers, that's great thanks. Good luck.

uhoh1

what do people predict for equity exam march 2011?

cd.galway

Hey just relating to the Ivor Callely case...this is on Callelys argument of fair procedures basically and the fact that he was suspended without a fair hearing? And the respondents argument that Article 15.10 and the internal workings of the Oireachtas meant it was non-justiciable, I read most of the case and just wondering if the fact that Callelys case was justiciable meant he was re-instated to his position?

This and the Mckillen Nama case I read...just wondering what other important cases is everyone reading?
Also I'm finding it hard to get notes on justiciability...This having not been gone through in the manual...just wondering if anyone has a good article on it? Or a list of cases it most crucially was raised?
And do ye think the fact that the Seanads existence and potential abolition has been the feature of political debate recently, reflects it could be a potential question bearing in mind we've relatively scarce notes on the issue..

cd.galway

Also I saw something on this thread on a recent case of removal of a judge...thought this couldn't happen....was it an exceptional case?

JCJCJC

This mightn't bother too many people here, but just in case...

I've been doing Trustee's Duties, looking at Delaney's textbook and a 2005-6 GCD Equity manual which I thought would be ok supported with other materials because equity doesn't develop a whole lot in five years. Delaney seemed to have a lot more Trustee's duties, I was wondering why. I discovered that the manual was missing pages 198-9 completely, it would appear - from new. So if you're doing that topic, make sure you have these duties in your materials:
Duties on Appointment
Duty to Safeguard Assets
Duty to Invest *
Duty to Maintain Equality
Duty To Convert
Duty to Apportion
Duty to Distribute*
Duty To keep accounts and provide info
Duty not to profit *
Duty not to delegate *

The ones with asterisks are in the GCD book, I must presume the extra ones were on the page that is missing. Maybe my book is a one-off glitch, but just check your list if you are interested in this.

JCJCJC

cd.galway wrote: »

Also I saw something on this thread on a recent case of removal of a judge...thought this couldn't happen....was it an exceptional case?

It was. Remember Judge Curtin and the laptop?

JCJCJC

uhoh1 wrote: »

what do people predict for equity exam march 2011?

Injunctions - probably Mareva because most of the case-law is there and there's some fresh stuff
Charitable trusts
PUrchase money resulting trusts
Trustee's duties, powers, removal/appointment
Donatio Mortis Causa
Quistclose trusts
something out of remedies - maybe recission, rectification, undue influence that sort of thing?

The way I look at it, the syllabus divides in a broad sense into trusts, injunctions and remedies. Some of it isn't 'hot' for professional exams, the interesting areas are the fast-moving ones that are in court regularly and constantly developing. I'm concentrating on those. Our examiner seems interested in UK-Irish differences so don't miss them when they arise, eg the class ascertainability rule in trusts etc.

zelda88

cd.galway wrote: »

Hey just relating to the Ivor Callely case...this is on Callelys argument of fair procedures basically and the fact that he was suspended without a fair hearing? And the respondents argument that Article 15.10 and the internal workings of the Oireachtas meant it was non-justiciable, I read most of the case and just wondering if the fact that Callelys case was justiciable meant he was re-instated to his position?

This and the Mckillen Nama case I read...just wondering what other important cases is everyone reading?
Also I'm finding it hard to get notes on justiciability...This having not been gone through in the manual...just wondering if anyone has a good article on it? Or a list of cases it most crucially was raised?
And do ye think the fact that the Seanads existence and potential abolition has been the feature of political debate recently, reflects it could be a potential question bearing in mind we've relatively scarce notes on the issue..

I would say that the potential abolition of the Seanad is highly unlikely to feature on the paper, especially considering that the papers are set months in advance. Unfortunately I cant help with your questions, Im familiar with Callely but not entirely sure what remedy was obtained. Am wondering whats the significance of the McKillen case re constitutional law?

234

zelda88 wrote: »

Am wondering whats the significance of the McKillen case re constitutional law?

Almost none I thought. Since the case was decided on the issue of the interim agency not having authority to select loans for transfer, the court would not as a matter of constitutional litigation procedue consider other constitutional questions unless they had to.

Dylan123

Just looking at the exam grid and EU seems to mix a lot of topics. It is certainly the most frightening exam grid.
I was told that we can expect a full question without the mixing of topics in the following areas:(dont believe everything your told springs to mind)
(1) Equality
(2) Competition
(3) Eu citizenship
(4) Direct effect
(5) Free movement of goods

Is this accurate?

I never would have guessed it was Paddys day? Keep smiling
Also how is it that everyone in the know states it is impossible to pass on 3 questions and some genius believes he passed on three questions???

law86

Dylan123 wrote: »

Just looking at the exam grid and EU seems to mix a lot of topics. It is certainly the most frightening exam grid.
I was told that we can expect a full question without the mixing of topics in the following areas:(dont believe everything your told springs to mind)
(1) Equality
(2) Competition
(3) Eu citizenship
(4) Direct effect
(5) Free movement of goods

Is this accurate?

I never would have guessed it was Paddys day? Keep smiling
Also how is it that everyone in the know states it is impossible to pass on 3 questions and some genius believes he passed on three questions???

Definitely not true. You would be extremely lucky to get 5 full questions out of the above. Citizenship is often mixed with Free Movement of Services. Equality is not a guaranteed at all. The institutions used to be a banker but wasn't on last time. Usually, there is a full question on competition, and another on direct effect and MEQRs. Generally there is one on application of EU law too, supremacy etc. Personally I think you would be leaving yourself short banking on the five you listed. I would add one or two more topics.

frustratedTC

JCJCJC wrote: »

Injunctions - probably Mareva because most of the case-law is there and there's some fresh stuff
Charitable trusts
PUrchase money resulting trusts
Trustee's duties, powers, removal/appointment
Donatio Mortis Causa
Quistclose trusts
something out of remedies - maybe recission, rectification, undue influence that sort of thing?

The way I look at it, the syllabus divides in a broad sense into trusts, injunctions and remedies. Some of it isn't 'hot' for professional exams, the interesting areas are the fast-moving ones that are in court regularly and constantly developing. I'm concentrating on those. Our examiner seems interested in UK-Irish differences so don't miss them when they arise, eg the class ascertainability rule in trusts etc.

Are Quistclose and Purchase money resulting trusts heavily tipped for this yr?

Dylan123

Absolutely - you always have to have a couple of other topics to hand

I think there has to be an element of luck with these exams. Not many can answer a question 100%
on each niche of the syllabus.... simply impossible

steph86

the days are flying in now omg!
Have still a good bit left to learn off so i'm pure starting to stress. is anyone else really stressed out?
Dyaln123 i would def do fmow, fundamental rights and eu competences and the institutions as well as what your doing.
I wouldnt bank on equality coming up as a def, it could come up against something else like it did last year, it came up against competition.
With tort i will be doing some cramming this weekend. I envy the people off today!

happy_man2010

steph86 wrote: »

the days are flying in now omg!
Have still a good bit left to learn off so i'm pure starting to stress. is anyone else really stressed out?
Dyaln123 i would def do fmow, fundamental rights and eu competences and the institutions as well as what your doing.
I wouldnt bank on equality coming up as a def, it could come up against something else like it did last year, it came up against competition.
With tort i will be doing some cramming this weekend. I envy the people off today!

Don't worry, everyone is stressed. Have company followed by equity myself. Only focusing on those two for now! It's a cramming session. A lot of people on here scare me with how much they seem to be prepared which is commendable. There are others out there though like myself who are cramming as much as possible and hoping it sticks!!

Sheedy

Hi all,

Can anybody clarify for me the actual effects of the Zumbrano case for Ireland?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0309/1224291667585.html

I gather that a child born in Ireland still has to have at least one irish parent to gain irish citizenship?

Thanks in advance.

Kamilat

happy_man2010 wrote: »

Don't worry, everyone is stressed. Have company followed by equity myself. Only focusing on those two for now! It's a cramming session. A lot of people on here scare me with how much they seem to be prepared which is commendable. There are others out there though like myself who are cramming as much as possible and hoping it sticks!!

You are same as myself so, Im sitting them two aswel and trying to cram and gamble with topics. It's crazy, no time off for me...hopefully worth it in the end!

wez99950

Was wondering if someone could explain to me the case:
Shogum Finance Ltd v Hudson in regards to Mistake in Contract Law. Can't really get my head around the case and what it actually is saying. It's probably really simply ha ha!

Also, people doing mistake - are you covering Non Est Factum? Not on the syllabus but if it's nec i'll cover it.

frustratedTC

While the case is more along the lines of Lyndsay v. Cundy in that the rogue wasn't face to face, the majority of HoL basically approved the Philip/Lewis line of authority

nr46

Hi there,

just wondering what ppl are covering in constitutional?

Im doing the following:
-Constitutional Interpretation
-President
-SOP
-Non Justiciability
-Oireachtas
-Unenum rights
-Livelihood
-Equality
-Prop rights
-Family & Education
-Expression
-Trial in due course of law
-Religion

will that be enough?! Its getting so close now so panic has really started in!

Also, what exactly are ppl covering in family and education?!

Roll on the 1st of April!!!!

CFOLEY85

Hi All

Stressed isnt the word. In relation to Vicarious Liability, whats the appropriate test to apply, Scope / Course? Or should I just mention the two of them in my answer?

Ps: why does the tort examiner make questions so confusing, Grrrr

Dylan123

Just out of curiosity do many people simply write there name on the fourth paper and walk out...

I take it you must stay for an hour or so... do many people walk out then..

JCJCJC

Dylan123 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity do many people simply write there name on the fourth paper and walk out...

I take it you must stay for an hour or so... do many people walk out then..

Don't write your name unless your first name is Bob. Last October in Cork there was a big exodus after the first hour in EU. Read your Blackstones to pass the time, you'll have to sit the bloody thing some time.

JCJCJC

Question 5, April 2009, Equity:
Write a note on ...the principle in Hastings-Bass [1975]

Has anyone any notion of what that case was about? Delaney's textbook and materials book don't list the case in any shape or form. Hanbury & Martin have a few minor references to it in footnotes, and five or six very complex lines about sub-trusts, whatever they are. Even GCD, who know absolutely everything, didn't tackle it in the sample answers, they did the other two notes and hard to blame them I suppose, perfectly good answer to the question. Westlaw never heard of Hastings-Bass either, and the examiner said only a handful of students attempted the question.
The only outfit that have anything on it is Google which turned up this which says the rule has been wiped out as of 2010, so i suppose it's re-appearance isn't likely. Looking further in Google, HM's Revenue have a decent enough note here. Anyone like to comment...?

Eyespy

JCJCJC wrote: »

Question 5, April 2009, Equity:
Write a note on ...the principle in Hastings-Bass [1975]

Has anyone any notion of what that case was about? Delaney's textbook and materials book don't list the case in any shape or form. Hanbury & Martin have a few minor references to it in footnotes, and five or six very complex lines about sub-trusts, whatever they are. Even GCD, who know absolutely everything, didn't tackle it in the sample answers, they did the other two notes and hard to blame them I suppose, perfectly good answer to the question. Westlaw never heard of Hastings-Bass either, and the examiner said only a handful of students attempted the question.
The only outfit that have anything on it is Google which turned up this which says the rule has been wiped out as of 2010, so i suppose it's re-appearance isn't likely. Looking further in Google, HM's Revenue have a decent enough note here. Anyone like to comment...?

Hi JCJCJC,

haven't heard of the case before but think I've found it here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1974/13.html Hope it helps and the best of luck with this sitting guys, I'll be in your shoes come autumn.

JCJCJC

Eyespy wrote: »

Hi JCJCJC,

haven't heard of the case before but think I've found it here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1974/13.html Hope it helps and the best of luck with this sitting guys, I'll be in your shoes come autumn.

Thanks for that. I'm so used to going to 'Ireland' on bailii it didn't occur to me to search the whole site. This seems to be the principle:
To sum up the preceding observations, in our judgment, where by the terms of a trust (as under Section 52) a trustee is given a discretion as to some matter under which he acts in good faith, the court should not interfere with his action notwithstanding that it does not have the full effect which he intended, unless (1) what he has achieved is unauthorised by the power conferred upon him, or (2) it is clear that he would not have acted as he did (a} had he not taken into account considerations which he should not have taken into account, or (b) had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to have taken into account. In the present case (2) above has not, in our judgment, been established; but the Commissioners contend that for reasons stated in their third submission, sub-head (a), and their final submission what the trustees achieved in the present case was in excess of their power.