FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

JCJCJC

skeenan89 wrote: »

hi guys....

just wondering if people are leaving out defective premises for the exam? it hasnt seemed to have come up before!
think im gonna do:

duty of care
standard of care
causation
proof of negligence
pure economic loss
nervous shock
professional negligence
employers liability
vicarious liability
occupiers liability
defective products
defamation
trepass to the person
torts relating to land
passing off
misc tort
defences and
damages



anything else i need to do????

I'd do animal torts. GCD tipped it in March 2010, it didn't come up then but it did in October 2010. It's short, interesting, logical and easy. There's a great Canadian case on dogs and the doctrine of scienter here, and O'Brien v Derwin [2009] deals with the Irish law on it pretty well.

JC

law_lady

Hi again, sorry for the stupid question, but for anyone studying from Griffith manuals, where in the manual is the issue of retrospective legislation discussed? I'm confused!:(

Hogzy

law_lady wrote: »

Hi again, sorry for the stupid question, but for anyone studying from Griffith manuals, where in the manual is the issue of retrospective legislation discussed? I'm confused!:(

I dont think its discussed anywhere. The Griffith manual is barely enough to pass the exam I dont think the griffith manual alone is enough to pass the exam. It requires a hell of a lot more "independent" study than any other manual i have received from griffith.

JCJCJC

law_lady wrote: »

Hi again, sorry for the stupid question, but for anyone studying from Griffith manuals, where in the manual is the issue of retrospective legislation discussed? I'm confused!:(

I have an old edition of Kelly, it's quite good on retrospectivity, Casey has little enough though. I'd expect the recent Kelly (I don't have it) to probably be good on it. There are some electronic journal articles on on-line databases too if you have access to any. Read Dublin City Council v Fennell and search that page for impediment to get to the hot part.

JC

JCJCJC

Hogzy wrote: »

I dont think its discussed anywhere. The Griffith manual is barely enough to pass the exam I dont think the griffith manual alone is enough to pass the exam. It requires a hell of a lot more "independent" study than any other manual i have received from griffith.

Jeez Hogzy, I always thought the surest way to pass was to RTFM ;-)

JCJCJC

In S4 of the NFOAP Act 1997, the word 'assault' does not appear, unlike Ss 2 and 3. S4 seems to creat the offence of 'causing serious harm' to another and that is also what the margin note says.

4.—(1) A person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another shall be guilty of an offence.

Even the index to the Act says 'causing serious harm' for Section 4.

Yet, the best case-law on 'serious harm' is DPP v Kirwan, Ct of Criminal Appeal 2005. Several times in the Kirwan transcript the judges refer to the offence as 'assault causing serious harm' which suggests that an assault is an ingredient of the offence to be proved by the prosecution. Which is correct? The Act (and my notes from GCD's one-day lecture, John Smith BL tutor) is clear that assault isn't an ingredient of a S4 offence, yet the leading case seems to assume that it is.

JC

glengirlie

Still no exam number in the post Anyone get theirs yet? Little bit worried!!!

chopser

JCJCJC wrote: »

I have an old edition of Kelly, it's quite good on retrospectivity, Casey has little enough though. I'd expect the recent Kelly (I don't have it) to probably be good on it. There are some electronic journal articles on on-line databases too if you have access to any. Read Dublin City Council v Fennell and search that page for impediment to get to the hot part.

JC

Thanks for that, I was also really stuck in last march exam when retrospectivity came up as it never really got much discussion time in Griffith course (I don't think)

Any other written articles / case that are helpful in this regard as I don't have acces to online database?

erinp

glengirlie wrote: »

Still no exam number in the post Anyone get theirs yet? Little bit worried!!!

Dont worry I haven't got mine either. I'm trying to see it as a positive thing- it means there's still plenty of cram time!

boomtown84

Did mortgages come up on the last exam and if so was it judgment mortgages or not?
still looking for an exam grid if anybody is kind enough to send me one via pm.

hope the study is going better than mine!!

bcdccm

bern8 wrote: »

Does anyone have any sample answers for EU?

I have ones for company, contract, property, equity or criminal if wanna swap!

Bern8, I have a few samples for EU? would really be interested in those ones for company, property and equity!!!

glengirlie

erinp wrote: »

Dont worry I haven't got mine either. I'm trying to see it as a positive thing- it means there's still plenty of cram time!

Thanks At this stage am hoping for an "administrative error" with my application and I wont have to sit them...panick stations kickin in

smjsmj

I havent received my exam number or anything yet but it seems like we're all in the same boat.

I think and am hoping that the griffith manual is enough just to get you 50%. I went through the manual a couple of times and couldnt find anything on retrospective legislation. There isnt much on the president either but i'm hoping that what there is in the manual i will be able to pass.
Im studying: constitutional interpretation, sop, locus standi, unspecified right, property, equality,due process, the president and probably family too.

law_lady

smjsmj wrote: »

I havent received my exam number or anything yet but it seems like we're all in the same boat.

I think and am hoping that the griffith manual is enough just to get you 50%. I went through the manual a couple of times and couldnt find anything on retrospective legislation. There isnt much on the president either but i'm hoping that what there is in the manual i will be able to pass.
Im studying: constitutional interpretation, sop, locus standi, unspecified right, property, equality,due process, the president and probably family too.

I used only the manual last time and came very close to passing. I had left out family and freedom of assembly at the last minute, feeling I had to cut something, and it turned out to be the wrong choice!! So even though I failed, I wouldn't blame it on studying only the manual.

Just a thought, but if I were you I would do Article 26 Referrals and the Attorney General. Neither came up last time, both are really short and easy to learn, and they do come up a fair bit. As I said before, Art 26 is the only bit of President I have studied, and I think I'll stick with that much for this go as well. The rest of it you could nearly piece together from whats in BnahÉ if you were really stuck!

Best of luck.

garethj

Post came from the Society this morning...just a heads up for people. Nothing of major importance in it.

JCJCJC

Anyone know if there's a consolidated version of the '06 and '10 acts anywhere on line?

crystalmice

This is my first time sitting the exams and Im a bit worried as I dont have any recent cases to drop in, Im stressing now as people seem to say thats really important?
In particular, does anyone know if there are any recent cases for directors duties of skill and care? My cases are all out of Courtney and are really old!

JCJCJC

crystalmice wrote: »

This is my first time sitting the exams and Im a bit worried as I dont have any recent cases to drop in, Im stressing now as people seem to say thats really important?
In particular, does anyone know if there are any recent cases for directors duties of skill and care? My cases are all out of Courtney and are really old!

Go to bailii, look at the SC and HC separately. Search for the names of the most recent cases you have because they are bound to be cited in anything newer. You should get the more up-to-date cases that way.

garethj

JCJCJC wrote: »

Anyone know if there's a consolidated version of the '06 and '10 acts anywhere on line?

What do you think JC - is there a need to cite punishments relevant to offences when attempting a problem question?

JCJCJC

garethj wrote: »

What do you think JC - is there a need to cite punishments relevant to offences when attempting a problem question?

Looking at GCD model answers, they don't particularly dwell on the punishments, but if you know it, I'd say fling it in. If for instance you were discussing assault, you could contrast S2, summary disposal, €1500 max, 6 months or both, with S3, indictment, unlimited fine, five years or both. It'll show you know the Act in detail and that can't harm your marks. Definitely know the more serious offences, FE1 examiners seem to compose questions that are more substantial wrongs than summary matters. If your brief is advise the alleged perp as it usually is, the advice can validly include the punishments, no-one could fault that advice.
Also, if you are discussing characteristics of a crime etc perhaps in an essay if it came up that way, a knowledge of the differences between specific major and minor offences would be impressive if you could weave it in to the structure. Summary - it can't hurt to know it, ok?

garethj

JCJCJC wrote: »

Looking at GCD model answers, they don't particularly dwell on the punishments, but if you know it, I'd say fling it in. If for instance you were discussing assault, you could contrast S2, summary disposal, €1500 max, 6 months or both, with S3, indictment, unlimited fine, five years or both. It'll show you know the Act in detail and that can't harm your marks. Definitely know the more serious offences, FE1 examiners seem to compose questions that are more substantial wrongs than summary matters. If your brief is advise the alleged perp as it usually is, the advice can validly include the punishments, no-one could fault that advice.
Also, if you are discussing characteristics of a crime etc perhaps in an essay if it came up that way, a knowledge of the differences between specific major and minor offences would be impressive if you could weave it in to the structure. Summary - it can't hurt to know it, ok?

Thanks a million for that! First time sitting these bad boys and not too sure of the whole generally accepted practice! One last question for you regarding Constitutional law - I have the independent manual which has nothing on the effect of pre-trial publicity on the family of the accused - I know the cases are Roe, Doe and Irish Times but can't find them anywhere. Any chance of a shove in the right direction please? Many thanks again

-aboutagirl-

Saw this advertised on a billboard last night:

http://www.citycolleges.ie/index.php/course/law-society-of-irelands-entrance-exams-fe-1-preparatory-course/

Assume this means Foley, Cockerill and Cronin are leaving Independent then??

JCJCJC

garethj wrote: »

Thanks a million for that! First time sitting these bad boys and not too sure of the whole generally accepted practice! One last question for you regarding Constitutional law - I have the independent manual which has nothing on the effect of pre-trial publicity on the family of the accused - I know the cases are Roe, Doe and Irish Times but can't find them anywhere. Any chance of a shove in the right direction please? Many thanks again

Rattigan is one you should look at too. My main source for Irish cases is www.bailii.org, but you'll get them on Westlaw too if you have access to it, and also on www.courts.ie. In his report last time, the exmr said the family privacy issue concerned A8 of the ECHR. To be honest I wouldn't have thought of it - I'd be inclined to say the right of society to have alleged wrongs prosecuted takes priority over the right of the family to privacy, I'm not great on the ECHR but this examiner seems to like it. There's a conflict between the ECHR< which provides a remedy when domestic processes are exhausted, and the rule that says reach constitutional issues last - they are then competing for last place in the judicial process. Yet the 2003 ECHR Act clearly puts the ECHR in a subordinate position to the Constitution.

colonel1

-aboutagirl- wrote: »

Saw this advertised on a billboard last night:

http://www.citycolleges.ie/index.php/course/law-society-of-irelands-entrance-exams-fe-1-preparatory-course/

Assume this means Foley, Cockerill and Cronin are leaving Independent then??

Wow, yeah, I couldn't believe it when I saw the ad on Boards yesterday. A pity about Mark (especially Mark - he was great:D) and Brendan leaving Independent if they are. Mind you the new place is cheaper than indo and Griffith (only 345 and cheaper again for the online course), so I may consider it for constitutional provided the manual is decent. I will stick with Indo for tort though. Don't let them poach Ciaran Patton mind!!

brian__foley

colonel1 wrote: »

Wow, yeah, I couldn't believe it when I saw the ad on Boards yesterday. A pity about Mark (especially Mark - he was great:D) and Brendan leaving Independent if they are. Mind you the new place is cheaper than indo and Griffith (only 345 and cheaper again for the online course), so I may consider it for constitutional provided the manual is decent. I will stick with Indo for tort though. Don't let them poach Ciaran Patton mind!!

To be expected really, given the litigation. Good luck to them!

Just on the notion of price. GCD runs 4 subjects at the price of 3. Hence, the actual cost of, say, the online is €350 x 3 / 4 = €262.50 per subject, once you enroll for four which most people do!

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

There's a conflict between the ECHR< which provides a remedy when domestic processes are exhausted, and the rule that says reach constitutional issues last - they are then competing for last place in the judicial process. Yet the 2003 ECHR Act clearly puts the ECHR in a subordinate position to the Constitution.

Intriguing point. Tease it out though...

Suppose I have a case which has grounds A, B and C, with C being the constitutional ground. The "reach constitutional issues" last point only arises if I succeed on point A or B which means, well...that I've succeeded.

Where is the conflict with the ECHR? Yes, there has to be effective remedies for breach of ECHR rights in Ireland. Is the point that if you can succeed on a non-ECHR point, then there is no effective remedy or way for the Courts to consider the ECHR point if it won't be progressed to by reason of success of a non-ECHR point?

I'm not a million per cent persuaded that this amounts to less-than-effective rights protection given that it only arises where the case would be successful for other grounds.

I may be mis-understanding your point, but I'm intrigued...

colonel1

brian__foley wrote: »

To be expected really, given the litigation. Good luck to them!

Just on the notion of price. GCD runs 4 subjects at the price of 3. Hence, the actual cost of, say, the online is €350 x 3 / 4 = €262.50 per subject, once you enroll for four which most people do!

Agreed Brian, the Griffith offer is great, but I have my first 4 so I am doing one subject at time as my full time job is demanding enough. So for a person doing 1 subject at a time 345 Euro per subject is a great price:D

JCJCJC

brian__foley wrote: »

Intriguing point. Tease it out though...

Suppose I have a case which has grounds A, B and C, with C being the constitutional ground. The "reach constitutional issues" last point only arises if I succeed on point A or B which means, well...that I've succeeded.

Where is the conflict with the ECHR? Yes, there has to be effective remedies for breach of ECHR rights in Ireland. Is the point that if you can succeed on a non-ECHR point, then there is no effective remedy or way for the Courts to consider the ECHR point if it won't be progressed to by reason of success of a non-ECHR point?

I'm not a million per cent persuaded that this amounts to less-than-effective rights protection given that it only arises where the case would be successful for other grounds.

I may be mis-understanding your point, but I'm intrigued...

Hi Brian. I was basing that on the sample answer from none other than your own GCD to Q8, March 2010, para2! That refers to Carmody v Min Justice 2005, where Laffoy J identified the snag:

At first sight, the fact that the plaintiff seeks only two remedies, one of which, the declaration of incompatibility, can only be granted where no other legal remedy is adequate and available, and the other, a declaration of constitutional invalidity which, as a matter of constitutional jurisprudence should only be considered if the resolution of an issue of law other than constitutional law is determined first and does not determine the case (the formulation of the self-restraint rule by Finlay C.J. in Murphy v. Roche [1987] I.R. 106), would seem to present a classic "catch-22" dilemma.

However, Laffoy J went on to resolve the matter, and her decision seems to be the settled law on it for the time being anyway:

As a matter of construction of s. 5(1) it cannot have been the intention of the Oireachtas that, where a statutory provision enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, the question of its compatibility with the State's obligations under the Convention provisions which are invoked should be postponed until determination of its constitutional validity. Such a construction would be at variance with the approach adopted by the courts in judicially reviewing legislation under the Constitution from the outset. It would also be at variance with the express purpose of the Act of 2003 as stated in the long title, which expressly subordinates the effect given to the Convention in domestic law to the provisions of the Constitution.

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

Hi Brian. I was basing that on the sample answer from none other than your own GCD to Q8, March 2010, para2! That refers to Carmody v Min Justice 2005, where Laffoy J identified the snag:

At first sight, the fact that the plaintiff seeks only two remedies, one of which, the declaration of incompatibility, can only be granted where no other legal remedy is adequate and available, and the other, a declaration of constitutional invalidity which, as a matter of constitutional jurisprudence should only be considered if the resolution of an issue of law other than constitutional law is determined first and does not determine the case (the formulation of the self-restraint rule by Finlay C.J. in Murphy v. Roche [1987] I.R. 106), would seem to present a classic "catch-22" dilemma.

However, Laffoy J went on to resolve the matter, and her decision seems to be the settled law on it for the time being anyway:

As a matter of construction of s. 5(1) it cannot have been the intention of the Oireachtas that, where a statutory provision enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, the question of its compatibility with the State's obligations under the Convention provisions which are invoked should be postponed until determination of its constitutional validity. Such a construction would be at variance with the approach adopted by the courts in judicially reviewing legislation under the Constitution from the outset. It would also be at variance with the express purpose of the Act of 2003 as stated in the long title, which expressly subordinates the effect given to the Convention in domestic law to the provisions of the Constitution.

Grand, but that aspect of Carmody really just says (doesn't it?) that ECHR issues don't have to wait until constitutional issues are determined? And that was simply a way of dealing with the catch-22 she identified.

I thought the point you were making was about a conflict between the Article 13 obligation that remedies need be effective and the notion that an ECHR point may not be determined if there is another way of determining the case? That's the point I'm intrigued by and its not really what Carmody was about.

JCJCJC

brian__foley wrote: »

Grand, but that aspect of Carmody really just says (doesn't it?) that ECHR issues don't have to wait until constitutional issues are determined? And that was simply a way of dealing with the catch-22 she identified.

I thought the point you were making was about a conflict between the Article 13 obligation that remedies need be effective and the notion that an ECHR point may not be determined if there is another way of determining the case? That's the point I'm intrigued by and its not really what Carmody was about.

I must have expressed the point badly then Brian, all I had in mind was the GCD observation of the apparent difficulty posed and resolved as you have confirmed in Carmody. Thanks for your replies.

JC