FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Caoileann

So far one has gone badly and one couldn't have gone better, the heat is on to get my last two! Does anyone who has passed have any advice relating to equity/criminal? So far ive found you pretty much have to cover everything, as my exams so far have definitely been unpredictable. Are equity and criminal more predictable? can they be cut down? For example in criminal, I heard a question on practise and procedure always comes up- I havent covered that yet and was thinking if I did virtually everything else if I could cut that. Are the problems mixed like contract? I have no time for exam papers im just cramming the info into my head! Would appreciate any opinions or experiences with these subjects. No room for another bad paper!

db707

Equity- notes handed out by City Colleges
Looking at list of rescission cases and 2011 case of Mooreview Developments v First Active. Just had a quick look and can see no relevance whatsoever. Does any know the point to be made from this case?

Strawberry Fields

karlpilkington wrote: »

hate exam post mortums but....I answered the first part of the advise Charles question as a williams roffey brothers type deal.. it almost had exact same facts but charles (subcontractor) asked for the additional payment so i figured he wasnt entitled to keep payment? Anyone else use this logic?

I said he could as it obtains a benefit or obviates a disbenefit but if it was economic duress he could not.

cooper10

AnnAh1986 wrote: »

cooper10 wrote: »

This stuff is soul destroying - cannot believe the utter banality of FMOG. Don't know what I was thinking this morning Thanks for your tips though!

I actually just checked as I am cutting down too and with those topics listed first you would have 5 questions every year even without the case note question - at least back as far as 2007 - so you could be lucky if you study those! It's worth a go, especially with the Treaties as an aid.

absoloutley - sure I'm registered now so I may as well do it. Do you know if Citizenship came up on the March 2011 paper by any chance? That's more my kind of subject - less boring statute type stuff and more cases!

cooper10

Caoileann wrote: »

So far one has gone badly and one couldn't have gone better, the heat is on to get my last two! Does anyone who has passed have any advice relating to equity/criminal? So far ive found you pretty much have to cover everything, as my exams so far have definitely been unpredictable. Are equity and criminal more predictable? can they be cut down? For example in criminal, I heard a question on practise and procedure always comes up- I havent covered that yet and was thinking if I did virtually everything else if I could cut that. Are the problems mixed like contract? I have no time for exam papers im just cramming the info into my head! Would appreciate any opinions or experiences with these subjects. No room for another bad paper!

For criminal I didn't cover any of the detention and bail and access to Solicitor stuff. Once you know the offences against the person, sexual offences, incohate offences and defences you should be fine for questions.

AnnAh1986

cooper10 wrote: »

absoloutley - sure I'm registered now so I may as well do it. Do you know if Citizenship came up on the March 2011 paper by any chance? That's more my kind of subject - less boring statute type stuff and more cases!

Citizenship has been up every year in some form - last year the usual 3 part Q with one part on FMO Workers. The Statute stuff is boring but often with only 2 or 3 reads over the material you can answer the Q's as the Treaties trigger your memory. There are 2 Fundamental Freedom questions basically every year anyway.

Cherry_Angel

karlpilkington wrote: »

hate exam post mortums but....I answered the first part of the advise Charles question as a williams roffey brothers type deal.. it almost had exact same facts but charles (subcontractor) asked for the additional payment so i figured he wasnt entitled to keep payment? Anyone else use this logic?

I did the same.. Surely with the facts so similar we cant be too far off...

MDR25

Cherry_Angel wrote: »

I did the same.. Surely with the facts so similar we cant be too far off...

But in that case was the sub contractor not entitled to keep the additional money less some expenses for defects?? im so confused.

brannid3

karlpilkington wrote: »

hate exam post mortums but....I answered the first part of the advise Charles question as a williams roffey brothers type deal.. it almost had exact same facts but charles (subcontractor) asked for the additional payment so i figured he wasnt entitled to keep payment? Anyone else use this logic?

I used Roffey bros but I said he could keep payment because even though it was a pre existing duty for him to finish his work in a timely manner, the courts in this instance found extra consideration in the bonus therefore he was allowed to seek the 2000 or whatever it was extra. It was my guess though so I was probably wrong but I did use Roffey bros case.Anyways..Onward and upward!Also said charles was liable for Sinead under soga as it was an exemption to privity..right I'm done talking bout contract now

doing

brannid3 wrote: »

I used Roffey bros but I said he could keep payment because even though it was a pre existing duty for him to finish his work in a timely manner, the courts in this instance found extra consideration in the bonus therefore he was allowed to seek the 2000 or whatever it was extra. It was my guess though so I was probably wrong but I did use Roffey bros case.Anyways..Onward and upward!Also said charles was liable for Sinead under soga as it was an exemption to privity..right I'm done talking bout contract now

I haven't got my contract book here with me, so I might well be wrong here, but I think the judge in that case said you could only keep the payment under a few conditions: if it was the employers idea (it wasn't, it was Charles), if the guy wasn't under economic duress (he wasn't - this was really annoying, to cover this I had to write about McLobb v Total Oil 1985, and then say that his penalty clause was an unenforcable penalty clause anyway), and finally you can only keep the payment if you didn't defraud your employer, and Pat said he'd 'done nothing' with the extra 2 grand so it sounded like he might well have defrauded him too.

MoneyMilo

Anyone have any thoughts on how equity is marked? Tough to pass?

JCJCJC

MoneyMilo wrote: »

Anyone have any thoughts on how equity is marked? Tough to pass?

Got it at the first attempt last march, I wouldn't consider it the worst by a long shot but I liked it in college and have some direct court experience with injunctions etc so I have a reasonably good understanding of how it works in practise. There is supposed to be no such thing as new equity, so it's a matter of knowing the recent case-law on fairly well settled principles, and knowing the old classic cases that established those principles.

JC

Hogzy

When is a will executed?

Is it when the testator dies or when the will is signed?

boomtown84

Hogzy wrote: »

When is a will executed?

Is it when the testator dies or when the will is signed?

not until the executor/trix administers the estate i'd imagine?

Hogzy

boomtown84 wrote: »

not until the executor/trix administers the estate i'd imagine?

No its definetly not that. Its either one of the two situations above.

JCJCJC

boomtown84 wrote: »

not until the executor/trix administers the estate i'd imagine?

Jeez no. Executing a will simply means making a valid one, ie signing a properly attested will in the presence of the witnesses etc.

This is from Lambert & Anor -v- Lyons & Ors [2010]

Mr. Lyons counterclaimed that the deceased made and executed the testamentary document on the 21st August, 2003, and the codicil on the 21st May, 2004, in accordance with the provisions of the Succession Act 1965, and that the said documents constituted the deceased last Will and testament. The deceased died on the 27th January, 2005, without having altered or revoked the said Will or the said codicil and a grant of probate was issued on the 7th March, 2007.

This is from Elliot v Stamp [2004]

Proceedings began by way of summons dated 13th July 2004, wherein the plaintiff claimed an order refusing probate of “the pretended will” purportedly executed on or about 20th February 2003; a declaration that the said will was not validly executed; that the testator was not of sound disposing mind and, in the alternative, a declaration that the will was procured by acts of undue influence brought to bear upon the Deceased by the defendants.

Search bailii ( Irish High Court) for /executed deceased will executor/ and you'll get plenty info.

JC

boomtown84

brb brushing up on my succession!:eek:

law girl

in terms of a question on maxims -standard write about 4- do you think it really matters what 4 you do?

I appreciate the four most important ones are: equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy, He who seeks equity must do equity, he who seeks equity must come with clean hands and equity defeats delay BUT there are other ones that are just a bit shorter to write about and I'm purely thinking time...

Kamilat

law girl wrote: »

in terms of a question on maxims -standard write about 4- do you think it really matters what 4 you do?

I appreciate the four most important ones are: equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy, He who seeks equity must do equity, he who seeks equity must come with clean hands and equity defeats delay BUT there are other ones that are just a bit shorter to write about and I'm purely thinking time...

yea but what they seem to be looking for are the ones that still apply in modern law. the ones you outlined are still very much applicable now but you just need to give a recent case to show they are still in use. Im just going to give a case or two for each as the maxims usually come up as part of a note question so we won't have much time to write on it

JCJCJC

law girl wrote: »

I appreciate the four most important ones are: ... equity defeats delay ...

Huh? lol, I wish it did!

Kamilat

Equity

would anyone know if section 47 of Charities Act 1961 is still in force as regards the cy-pres doctrine? Can't find any info online and I thought most of the act was repealed by the new Charities Act 2009...

-aboutagirl-

Kamilat wrote: »

Equity

would anyone know if section 47 of Charities Act 1961 is still in force as regards the cy-pres doctrine? Can't find any info online and I thought most of the act was repealed by the new Charities Act 2009...

I think Section 47 is still in force. This is the extent of what was repealed.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0006/sched2.html#sched2

Edit: but also worth knowing that not much of the 2009 Act is actually in force:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0284.html

bob_lob_law

MoneyMilo wrote: »

Anyone have any thoughts on how equity is marked? Tough to pass?

I got 50 on the nose, thought it went fine in comparison to other subjects which I ended up doing better in - take from that what you will!

Kamilat

-aboutagirl- wrote: »

Kamilat wrote: »

Equity

would anyone know if section 47 of Charities Act 1961 is still in force as regards the cy-pres doctrine? Can't find any info online and I thought most of the act was repealed by the new Charities Act 2009...

I think Section 47 is still in force. This is the extent of what was repealed.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0006/sched2.html#sched2

Edit: but also worth knowing that not much of the 2009 Act is actually in force:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0284.html

brilliant thanks a mil for that. Saved me!

law girl

Kamilat wrote: »

yea but what they seem to be looking for are the ones that still apply in modern law. the ones you outlined are still very much applicable now but you just need to give a recent case to show they are still in use. Im just going to give a case or two for each as the maxims usually come up as part of a note question so we won't have much time to write on it

How modern should the cases be? I don't think I have anything very up to date to be honest, I was going by the GCD manuals.

frustratedTC

Anyone got predictions for property? What u all covering?

Im doing:
finding
tenure
equity and notice
systems of land registration
succession
co-ownership
family
adverse possession
easements
covenants
leases
judgement mortgages.

Am I covered for 5 q's?

Hogzy

frustratedTC wrote: »

Anyone got predictions for property? What u all covering?

Im doing:
finding
tenure
equity and notice
systems of land registration
succession
co-ownership
family
adverse possession
easements
covenants
leases
judgement mortgages.

Am I covered for 5 q's?

Id say you'll be covered for all 8

JCJCJC

law girl wrote: »

How modern should the cases be? I don't think I have anything very up to date to be honest, I was going by the GCD manuals.

Go to bailii.org and navigate to the High Court page. Set up a search on the basis of FIND this phrase and enter your maxim - any of them. Sort the results by date to get the newest on top. Doing that just now, I got Dolan -v- Reynolds [2011] which includes delay defeats equity and clean hands. Easy-peasy. 20 mins research will give you a lot of material.

law girl

JCJCJC wrote: »

Go to bailii.org and navigate to the High Court page. Set up a search on the basis of FIND this phrase and enter your maxim - any of them. Sort the results by date to get the newest on top. Doing that just now, I got Dolan -v- Reynolds [2011] which includes equity defeats delay and clean hands. Easy-peasy. 20 mins research will give you a lot of material.

you know it never clicked with me to search by phrase!

law girl

Hogzy wrote: »

Id say you'll be covered for all 8

What's missing form that list??