FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

MoneyMilo

Am I right in saying that the examiner makes 2 papers at the start of the year and then they're randomly allocated between Spring and Autumn for all subjects??

frustratedTC

cooper10 wrote: »

Company

just wondering whether people are doing Receivership, Liquidation or Examinership or whether time would be better spent doing something like Ultra Vires and Corporate Authority? Realistically I don't have time for all so it's defo either / or at this stage and seems to be the winding up topics aren't maybe as popular as main body of company law? All suggestions greatly appreciated!

What other topics are u covering? I would be more likely to so examinership

-splatto-

This my seem as a stupid question but I have seen that a few people are predicting Treasure Trove to come up in Property Law but by looking at my manual(independent Winter 2010-11) I cannot seem to find anything about it. It also does not seem to be in my exam grid which goes up to October 2010 (I am aware it appeared as a question in April)?Anyone help?

And also what is the story with marking the succession act for the exam,are we allowed to highlight certain provisions?

cooper10

frustratedTC wrote: »

cooper10 wrote: »

Company


What other topics are u covering? I would be more likely to so examinership

directors, borrowing, shareholder protection, separate legal personality and then I wasn't sure to do one of the winding up a company topics (I think it's dodgy because they don't seem to be all that frequent on the past papers - then again I don't know what was on April exam so maybe they were prevalent there)

chopser

What are people generally concentrating on ibn constitutional.
I'm
covering President and Attorney General.
Sep of Powers.
Fundamental rights.
Freedom of expression & Equality
Religion
Due process
Locus standi
Interpretation.

is this close to enough?

frustratedTC

Examinership is tipped but sure who knows with these!Fraudulent preference i think was on the last paper and so was receivership, and since they're all pretty topical i wouldn't be too shocked if examinership was on this paper, as he sets the 2 papers together and may have decided to reflect whats going on in Irish company law in the exam papers since they are professional practice exams!

Just my guesstimation though really! Im really struggling to just remember all the stuff, far far too much of it, its insane

JLex

HI, just started reading sample answers from GCD for tort company and property. I noticed, the answers don't include much case law details, but are very analytical in relation to the problem asked. what are your opinions about GCD sample answers? Is the same format/style of answers expected on the exams?

JCJCJC

chopser wrote: »

What are people generally concentrating on ibn constitutional.
I'm
covering President and Attorney General.
Sep of Powers.
Fundamental rights.
Freedom of expression & Equality
Religion
Due process
Locus standi
Interpretation.

is this close to enough?

Going by the last paper, I've covered unconstitutional legislation, retrospective legislation, property rights and fair procedures as well as most of yours.

brian__foley

juliach wrote: »

HI, just started reading sample answers from GCD for tort company and property. I noticed, the answers don't include much case law details, but are very analytical in relation to the problem asked. what are your opinions about GCD sample answers? Is the same format/style of answers expected on the exams?

You've got 35 minutes to read and write.

The best students won't be spending 4-5 lines describing what cases are about but will be constantly integrating their discussion with the facts provided. That way, you don't appear like the "rote learner" which the examiners routinely point out in the reports as leaping off the papers year in, year out.

Just taking, say, contract; you can have questions calling for reference to 15-20 cases in your 35 minutes (probably 28 mins writing time), and the marks are not going for the "all I know" about the cases, but cogently argued advice supported by the cases.

ananas

Does anyone know whether the 2011 Criminal Justice Public Order Act is now in action and whether it's made massive changes to the 1994 act? So confused

qz

brian__foley wrote: »

You've got 35 minutes to read and write.

The best students won't be spending 4-5 lines describing what cases are about but will be constantly integrating their discussion with the facts provided. That way, you don't appear like the "rote learner" which the examiners routinely point out in the reports as leaping off the papers year in, year out.

Just taking, say, contract; you can have questions calling for reference to 15-20 cases in your 35 minutes (probably 28 mins writing time), and the marks are not going for the "all I know" about the cases, but cogently argued advice supported by the cases.

+1. Four years of law exams in college and I don't think I ever once explained the facts of a case, simply applied the ratio of it to the problem at hand.

brian__foley

ananas wrote: »

Does anyone know whether the 2011 Criminal Justice Public Order Act is now in action and whether it's made massive changes to the 1994 act? So confused

It's a five minute read. Really just about aggressive begging.

It commenced on its enactment - i.e. the 2nd February 2011. Confirmed here.

ananas

You're a star Brian, thanks!

JLex

brian__foley wrote: »

You've got 35 minutes to read and write.

The best students won't be spending 4-5 lines describing what cases are about but will be constantly integrating their discussion with the facts provided. That way, you don't appear like the "rote learner" which the examiners routinely point out in the reports as leaping off the papers year in, year out.

Just taking, say, contract; you can have questions calling for reference to 15-20 cases in your 35 minutes (probably 28 mins writing time), and the marks are not going for the "all I know" about the cases, but cogently argued advice supported by the cases.

Thanks very much for pointing this out Brian. There is so many cases for each topic in GCD manuals, (which is great) hence I thought you need to make reference to most of them.

brian__foley

juliach wrote: »

Thanks very much for pointing this out Brian. There is so many cases for each topic in GCD manuals, (which is great) hence I thought you need to make reference to most of them.

You most likely do need to make reference to most of them. I think you're confusing the difference between "making reference" and going into lots of detail. Consider the below

"Peter seems to have seen a coat in the window of Kevin's shop with a large price tag on it, saying €150.00. The legal character (without more) of that would be an invitation to treat just the coat in the shop window was treated as same in Minister for Industry and Commerce v Pim. Generally speaking, but subject to exceptions, items placed for sale or, indeed, advertised for sale will be considered invitations to treat. So, goods for sale on a shelf are an invitation to treat as the drug-store products were in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist or the bramblefinch cock hens advertised for sale in Partridge v Crittenden. This means that Peter is the party making the offer, and the shop assistance can either accept, reject or, indeed, ignore that offer. Thus, the fact that the shop assistance informed Peter that the true price was €1150.00 doesn't amount to anything other than, in truth, a rejection of Peter's offer to purchase for €150.00"

There is reference therein to three cases, but there isn't a lot said about those three cases - simply enough to make the point. So, yes, the manual has cases in it - they are the cases which enable you to make your points. You just don't make your point by reciting reams of information about the cases on an exam. You learn about the cases and understand the facts so you can apply them in a judicious manner without reciting the facts and "all you know" about them.

Just think of shows like Law and Order etc. You don't see the lawyer objecting to a hearsay piece of evidence by explaining what the hearsay rule is. Saying "hearsay" is enough because we all get the point!

erinp

Hi
I was just wondering about the legislation we can bring in to the exam- I know we have to leave it in to be checked at least a day beforehand but... this may seem like a stupid question... is it the hotel we leave it in to, and what time of the day will people be there to take it? Do they keep it until the day of the exam?
Thanks

randomuser77

Hey guys

The examiner's report for Q3 Oct 2007 stated that relevant cases to that question included Mahony v East Holyford, Re Burke Clancy and Bamford and Bamford. I can't for the life of me figure out how this is relevant. Anyone have any ideas?

Also, have there been any major developments in Company law in the last two years that I absolutely have to pay attention to. I've seen the case of Re Mitek Holdings and I've noticed the Companies Bill 2011 (heads up for those who haven't seen it - http://www.arthurcox.com/uploadedFiles/Publications/Publication_List/Arthur%20Cox%20-%20The%20Company%20Agenda%20-%20Special%20(Draft%20Companies%20Bill),%20June%202011.pdf). Anything else people think may be relevant?

JCJCJC

brian__foley wrote: »

[/I]Just think of shows like Law and Order etc. You don't see the lawyer objecting to a hearsay piece of evidence by explaining what the hearsay rule is. Saying "hearsay" is enough because we all get the point!

Ah Brian, the next thing is you'll be telling us to watch Judge Judy and the Ml Jackson trial!

JC

JCJCJC

erinp wrote: »

Hi
I was just wondering about the legislation we can bring in to the exam- I know we have to leave it in to be checked at least a day beforehand but... this may seem like a stupid question... is it the hotel we leave it in to, and what time of the day will people be there to take it? Do they keep it until the day of the exam?
Thanks

There will be a desk manned by Law Society exam officials in the hotel near the exam hall - leave it to them. The day-before rule seems not to be strict - if you leave it in on the day you'll usually get it back in about half an hour, delivered to your desk, in my experience - borne out by others. There is no way I'm driving 150 miles to the Red Cow and the same back again to hand in my Constitution the day before, I'll drop it in on the day. Remember to put your number on the cover - nothing else.

erinp

JCJCJC wrote: »

There will be a desk manned by Law Society exam officials in the hotel near the exam hall - leave it to them. The day-before rule seems not to be strict - if you leave it in on the day you'll usually get it back in about half an hour, delivered to your desk, in my experience - borne out by others. There is no way I'm driving 150 miles to the Red Cow and the same back again to hand in my Constitution the day before, I'll drop it in on the day. Remember to put your number on the cover - nothing else.

That's great, don't think I'll bother going the day before then- I'm pretty sure I'll need the cram time.
You're great for answering questions, don't know what I'd do without you and this forum, thanks

JCJCJC

erinp wrote: »

That's great, don't think I'll bother going the day before then- I'm pretty sure I'll need the cram time.
You're great for answering questions, don't know what I'd do without you and this forum, thanks

Thank you. I've received a lot of help and useful advice here too, so if I can lower somebody's stress levels at this juncture with simple info based on being half-way through this process I will. We're not competing against each other, it's a threshold exam, not a competition. There is therefore no reason not to help people who in the last analysis will be your professional colleagues. The most helpful man here is undoubtedly Brian, who freely lends his professional expertise.

JC

JCJCJC

I'm stuck on something here. IC manual 09/10, page 131, para 13-11, says:

A modified objectivity requirement is seen in S6(2)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, where the test is whether the accused's actions were reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.

There was no such Act in 1991 per www.irishstatutebook.ie. There was a Criminal Damage Act 1991, which indeed has a Section 6(2)(c) which does deal with excusing property damage - not any kind of assault or homicide. Has anybody else come upon this - am I safe in assuming that they meant the Criminal Damage Act 1991?

JC

Hogzy

JCJCJC wrote: »

I'm stuck on something here. IC manual 09/10, page 131, para 13-11, says:

A modified objectivity requirement is seen in S6(2)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, where the test is whether the accused's actions were reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.

There was no such Act in 1991 per www.irishstatutebook.ie. There was a Criminal Damage Act 1991, which indeed has a Section 6(2)(c) which does deal with excusing property damage - not any kind of assault or homicide. Has anybody else come upon this - am I safe in assuming that they meant the Criminal Damage Act 1991?

JC

Its been a while since iv done criminal but isnt there a Criminal Justice Act 1990. Maybe thats it?

JCJCJC

Hogzy wrote: »

Its been a while since iv done criminal but isnt there a Criminal Justice Act 1990. Maybe thats it?

I looked at that Hogzy, it's not the one. I think it must be Criminal Damage. It's just badly phrased in the IC manual.

randomchild

Hi lads could anyone tell me what came up in last sitting's EU law exam? I'd say the post mortem of it is buried deep in the thread and I cannot seem to find it.

Ciaran Patton

JCJCJC wrote: »

I'm stuck on something here. IC manual 09/10, page 131, para 13-11, says:

A modified objectivity requirement is seen in S6(2)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, where the test is whether the accused's actions were reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.

There was no such Act in 1991 per www.irishstatutebook.ie. There was a Criminal Damage Act 1991, which indeed has a Section 6(2)(c) which does deal with excusing property damage - not any kind of assault or homicide. Has anybody else come upon this - am I safe in assuming that they meant the Criminal Damage Act 1991?

JC

It's the Criminal Damage Act, 1991.

S. 6(2)(c) was considered recently in The People (DPP) v. Kelly [2011] IECCA 25. For the Court of Criminal Appeal, Hardiman J said, "I]s. 6(2)(c)[/I require the acts which are the subject of the defence to be 'reasonable'. The Section ... makes it clear that this 'reasonableness' is to be assessed in the circumstances, not as they actually were, but as the defendant believed them to be. This is a highly subjective defence." (Emphasis added.)

The very same could be said of the defences provided for in ss. 18(1) and 19(1), Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997.

trasla7

just a general question if anyone knows because ive heard so many figures being tossed around but what are the pass rates for the fe1s in specific subjects?

frustratedTC

Hi all,
Doing disposition of assets and wondering if any1 could explain to be why debiting of interest isn't a disposition?

colonel1

trasla7 wrote: »

just a general question if anyone knows because ive heard so many figures being tossed around but what are the pass rates for the fe1s in specific subjects?

Hi trasla7, tbh I would suggest that you forget about pass rates at this stage, as you will only freak yourself out. Just prepare for the exam as well as you can, try not to panic on the day, and leave the rest to the examiners. Easier said than done probably, but much less stressful in the long run.

Some of the examiners do mention pass rates in their reports, and out of the subjects I have done thus far [company, equity, contract and criminal], the company law examiner is quite specific about the pass/fail rate for that particular sitting e.g. 50% of the candidates passed company law in March 2011, while only 30% passed the exam in October 2010.

0435414@live.ie

JessieJ wrote: »

Can anybody shed some light on the effect of the Zambrano case on EU Citizenship to me plllllllease?

What's everybody studying for EU? Any tips?

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2011/03/09/impact-of-the-cjeu-decision-zambrano-and-irish-law/