FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Eyespy

Hi folks, hope the studying is going well. Can completely sympathise about the exams in a row, was still thinking about constitutional when I should have been writing contract and all I can say is, thank god for the weekend. Equity should be grand, I can hope anyway Really hoping to pick up my three despite the horrible attempt on Friday so wishing for a nice paper Monday and Thursday. Best of luck to everyone for the next four days.

JC would you like me to send you a copy of the contract paper when I get time to scan it in? I think I saw you posting about looking at the questions.

JCJCJC

Eyespy wrote: »

JC would you like me to send you a copy of the contract paper when I get time to scan it in? I think I saw you posting about looking at the questions.

Send it to our friend and mentor Brian Foley BL. I've passed contract, thankfully. The discussion was in the context of people wondering what Brian thought of the paper - and I'll make the same point again - he can't comment unless and until he sees it.

tks JC

MoneyMilo

Out of interest sofakinggood, have you ever done property law at all?

AnnAh1986

ananas wrote: »

My head is clogged at the minute, criminal is proving difficult to retain with all the feckin cases! I'm thinking about leaving out insanity as I don't have any updated info, just all the old cases and the 2006 act, am I being stupid in leaving it out? I've done basically all of the course besides.

I passed criminal very comfortably and in my opinion you can afford to choose one topic to leave out - I chose inchoate offences but done EVERYTHING else and had 6 questions on the paper. So in my view you can absolutely leave out insanity once you do all else.

-aboutagirl-

evercloserunion wrote: »

Hi guys, just studying for equity at the moment but I don't have access to the manual or any past papers so I'm wondering whether I am preparing myself accurately. I'm planning on having covered:

- Specific performance
- Estoppel
- Injunctions
- Rescission (including mistake, undue influence, unconscionable bargain)
- Tracing
- Rectification
- Resulting trusts (including family property)
- Secret trusts
- Constructive trusts
- Charitable trusts
- Administration of trusts

Can anyone tell me if, judging by the past papers, this would cover me comfortably enough for five questions? Are there any topics in there that never come up, or are there any topics I haven't covered that always come up?

Cheers for the help!

You seem to have a lot covered.

I might add in Donatio Mortis Causa and the Rule in Strong v Bird as both are popular enough and haven't appeared in a while. Equally satisfaction and maxims pop up in the 'note' question from time to time.

With regards to rescission it has only ever been examined in the context of undue influence/improvidence so I would say you could safely ignore mistake/misrep.

Again with estoppel, its only ever been proprietary estoppel.

Constructive trusts usually arises only in the form of knowing/dishonest assistance so that's what I'd focus on there.

Maybe do cy-pres if you're doing Charitable trust? They can sometimes be together.

Writing this out reminds me of how much work I have to do for tomorrow!!

coco13

Could somebody please please post up the topics that appeared on the most recent EU Law exam.. Seem to have misplaced the paper.
Thanks

sofakingood

MoneyMilo wrote: »

Out of interest sofakinggood, have you ever done property law at all?

I have done yes, I have a LLB but I wont be able to remember enough to pass though.

LadyLily

I was wondering could anyone clarify something for me on tracing? None of my notes I have with me define what an Innocent Volunteer is, just says they are not guilty of any wrongdoing. Is it where someone accidentally mixes monies, including their own with trust or client funds or is it just someone whose own money has simply got caught up by someone else's fiduciary breach?!

mirm

LadyLily wrote: »

I was wondering could anyone clarify something for me on tracing? None of my notes I have with me define what an Innocent Volunteer is, just says they are not guilty of any wrongdoing. Is it where someone accidentally mixes monies, including their own with trust or client funds or is it just someone whose own money has simply got caught up by someone else's fiduciary breach?!

I think it's equitys darling, someone who has done no wrong and hasn't provided any consideration

Nang

mirm wrote: »

I think it's equitys darling, someone who has done no wrong and hasn't provided any consideration

As opposed to equity's darling who is a bona fide purchaser FOR VALUE without notice they have not provided consideration.

mirm

Nang wrote: »

mirm wrote: »

I think it's equitys darling, someone who has done no wrong and hasn't provided any consideration

As opposed to equity's darling who is a bona fide purchaser FOR VALUE without notice they have not provided consideration.

I better get reading!

LadyLily

mirm wrote: »

I better get reading!

You're not the only one... Thank you both! :-)

sunnyshinny

coco13 wrote: »

Could somebody please please post up the topics that appeared on the most recent EU Law exam.. Seem to have misplaced the paper.
Thanks

I HATE EU

Q1 Institutions
Q2 Directives (direct effect)
Q3 Enforcement Action / Annulment Action
Q4 Case Note Question
Q5 Free Movement of Goods and Freedom of Establishment
Q6 Free Movement of Workers + Citizenship rights
Q7 Free Movement of Capital (part) + mutual recognition of judicial decisions....
Q8 State Aid

smjsmj

hi
could someone clarify cypres for me please, i just cannot seem to get my head around it at all.

from what i can tell, an inital failure of a charitable trust arises where the actual trust has failed but there is an intention to benefit a charity.( for example a person intends for a certain charity to benefit but that charity does not exist) the cypres doctrine kicks in and allows the intended benefit a charity that is similiar.
A subsequent failure arises where there is a problem giving effect to the benefit so the courts will use the cypres doctrine to essentially tweak the benefit so that it can be given effect to the intended chartiable purpose.

any help would be greatly appreciated. thanks

Caoileann

For equity I am covering:

Charitable Trusts and Cy-Pres (time permitting Purpose trusts&non charitable PTs)
Secret Trusts
Proprietary Estoppel
Specific performance
Injunctions: Just Interlocutory, QT, Mareva and AP
Tracing
Trustees
Express Trusts- 3 certainties and constitution
DMC
Undue Influence (would i be safe leaving out the rest of rescission?)

For notes im doing:
Maxims
S&B
Rectification
Presumption of advancement
Satisfaction

I am leaving Constructive out altogether, and all Resulting trusts apart from presumption of advancement for notes.

I wonder should I do one of the other RTs/CTs.. does it seem like i would be covered? Stress!

evercloserunion

What's the story with the notes question, is it just "write a note on 3/4 of the following"? I presume we're not required to do it? I just hear a lot of people talking about it. I don't plan on doing maxims so I guess that means I should stay away from it?

LSH

smjsmj wrote: »

hi
could someone clarify cypres for me please, i just cannot seem to get my head around it at all.

from what i can tell, an inital failure of a charitable trust arises where the actual trust has failed but there is an intention to benefit a charity.( for example a person intends for a certain charity to benefit but that charity does not exist) the cypres doctrine kicks in and allows the intended benefit a charity that is similiar.
A subsequent failure arises where there is a problem giving effect to the benefit so the courts will use the cypres doctrine to essentially tweak the benefit so that it can be given effect to the intended chartiable purpose.

any help would be greatly appreciated. thanks

Ok from what I understand in the event of an initial failure it is necessary to demonstrate that the settlor had a paramount intention to benefit a charity for Re Gearys Trust or Re Lysaght....tweaked to make it fit!!

A Subseqent failure (has already been in effect for sometime and something happens to change circumstances), it must be established that the property has been given out and out to charity...leading case is Re Royal Kilmainham Hospital in this case it was for the support and maintenance of old soldiers of our army in Ireland. Ownership of the hospital was vested in the state and question arose on how to deal with money, it was held that donor had made an out and out gift to the intended chairty so the money was given to benefit former members of the Defence Forces and British Army...ie the donors wishes were adhered to "out and out" for the same purpose.

I am not the best at explaining things so hope this is of some help!!??

LSH

evercloserunion wrote: »

What's the story with the notes question, is it just "write a note on 3/4 of the following"? I presume we're not required to do it? I just hear a lot of people talking about it. I don't plan on doing maxims so I guess that means I should stay away from it?

Generally required to write a note on 2/3 - a few of the topics that have arisen:
Satisfaction
Maxims
Donation Mortis Causa
Rectification
Quistclosure
Rule in Strong Bird
Presumption of advancement

kelmchugh

Hi guys, could somebody please direct/ link me to the relevant legislation for treasure trove/ finding? Much appreciated.

bob_lob_law

Re insanity and automatism, I've also seen references to insane automatism - is this just insanity or what? Slightly confused! Thanks for any help.

sazzyfiz

kelmchugh wrote: »

Hi guys, could somebody please direct/ link me to the relevant legislation for treasure trove/ finding? Much appreciated.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0017/index.html

section 2!

note that in Webb v ireland it was held that only items of gold or silver could be treasure trove!

the other legislation refers to archeological items....ie non gold or silver items!

JCJCJC

sazzyfiz wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0017/index.html

section 2!

note that in Webb v ireland it was held that only items of gold or silver could be treasure trove!

the other legislation refers to archeological items....ie non gold or silver items!

Wiki is brilliant on the background info on it if you haven't a big standard textbook. Never cite Wiki in anything!

sazzyfiz

this is goin to sound very stupid....

but is a profit a prendre a type of easement? or is it a right similar to an easement??

JCJCJC

sazzyfiz wrote: »

this is goin to sound very stupid....

but is a profit a prendre a type of easement? or is it a right similar to an easement??

You may not have done French in school! A profit à prendre is a benefit that may be taken from land, such as grazing (agistment), a right to remove turf (turbary), fallen branches of trees (estovers), hunting rights and so on. The term is from old Norman law French - note the fada on the à goes to the left. As the examples show, it is capable of existing in gross ie you could own the hunting rights to land without owning any land yourself, and alienate or sub-divide the rights etc. In French, à prendre literally means that which may be taken.

An easement is chiefly distinguished in law from a profit à prendre by the fact that it can't exist in gross - there has to be a dominant and servient tenement - ie two distinct holdings of land. If A owns land that is landlocked, he'll need a right-of-way over B's land to get to it. He need not own B's land, just have a legal right to pass and re-pass as and when he needs to - it 'eases' his way onto his land, you could say. If Either A or B buy each other's land, the easement ceases to exist - clearly the need for it is moot by the two tenements falling into the same ownership.
Similarly, a right of support between two buildings is an easement, one shores up the other -Todd v Cinelli, a right in relation to weatherproofing in a terrace - Dublin Corp v Treacy and Larkin v Joosub, I've seen an odd-ball one - a right to use of a chimney in a party wall, a right to access shoreline - there are lots of them. Any old-timer conveyancing solicitor will have a litany of oddball ones he or she will have come across.

In a very well-known adverse possession case, Feehan -v- Leamy, the judge was obviously somewhat sympathetic to the owner of the paper title. The squatter had been grazing horses in the disputed field, and the judge dismissed this as a mere taking of a profit à prendre, ie insufficient dispossession to ground an adverse possession claim - in plain English he said you really only stole the grass - not good enough. I've sat in on a few adverse possession cases in the circuit court, where they are mostly heard because of the plv-based jurisdiction limit, and I've heard the same logic used several times. I did a thesis on adverse possession, that was my interest, and I have a barrister buddy who told me when cases were coming up.

Profits à prendre and easements are collectively properly known as incorporeal hereditaments. Incorporeal means they don't have 'body' or visible substance, hereditaments means they can be inherited in a will, eg I could leave you my hunting rights over Moyross in Limerick, and also that rates can be levied on them - fisheries in particular attracted rates liability when agricultural rates were part of the law. So in famous fisheries like Delphi in Mayo and the Blackwater in the Mallow-Kanturk areas, the farmers who owned the riverbanks paid rates on the land and notionally may indeed have at law owned to the centreline of the river, but a different person would have paid rates on the fishery.

Hope that explains it well enough. My all-time favourite law book is Peter Bland's book on this subject! These are the things John B Keane wrote plays about - the issues that make quiet country fellas get the shotguns out to blow the heads off each other. Great fun.

JC

RebelScorned

would love to see the following tomorrow- DMC, Secret, Automatic Resulting, Charitable/Cy-pres, Anton Piller and/or rectification/presumption advancement/quistclose/strong v bird in 10 marker Q.

FE1CHASER

I have been reading as much as I can but I cant seem to find a concise review of Strong v bird for the possible 10 marker. I was wondering is the summary on wikipedia any good or does anybody have any ideas? Thanks a mill, Lets hope its better than Constitutional was!

Kamilat

RebelScorned wrote: »

would love to see the following tomorrow- DMC, Secret, Automatic Resulting, Charitable/Cy-pres, Anton Piller and/or rectification/presumption advancement/quistclose/strong v bird in 10 marker Q.

dream paper eh... Hopefully

evercloserunion

Can anyone tell me, how essential are the following to the exam:

- Constitution of trusts (I'll probably do Strong v Bird and DMC anyway, so I mean the rest of this area) and
- Joint deposit accounts as a subset of resulting trusts (again, assuming I'm doing the rest of resulting trusts)?

Cheers for the help, it's a pain trying to get through all this without recourse to the past exam papers. Also been way too relaxed about this exam, haven't been able to motivate myself to study at all, now left trying to cram it all in the night before! :P

lilfeely

evercloserunion wrote: »

Can anyone tell me, how essential are the following to the exam:

- Constitution of trusts (I'll probably do Strong v Bird and DMC anyway, so I mean the rest of this area) and
- Joint deposit accounts as a subset of resulting trusts (again, assuming I'm doing the rest of resulting trusts)?

Cheers for the help, it's a pain trying to get through all this without recourse to the past exam papers. Also been way too relaxed about this exam, haven't been able to motivate myself to study at all, now left trying to cram it all in the night before! :P

I'm the same...I'm only concentrating on DMC and S v B. Ive done all of resulting trusts but left out Joint deposit accounts (done it ages ago and just don't have time to go over it tonight!) It is a risk leaving out...but at this stage I wouldn't stress trying to do it now.

sazzyfiz

does anyone have a copy of last years property paper that they could send me? I can swap swap eu or property sample answers!

just pm me!:D