FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

LadyLily

Did equity, have to say when I got city colleges notes on Friday I was a bit surprised at the fact they outlined their 8 key topics for revision as equity is not a predictable course and surprised at some of the predictions themselves, both secret and charitable? Very relieved I learned estoppel anyway and remembered one of the other topics vaguely from final year. Goes to show predictions by grinds schools are a very dodgy business!

Caoileann

Equity...

What the hell was Q5?! and Q7.. strong v bird with something else?

Very tough paper. All the tips were wrong

mrsuperclear

Where were my anton piller orders and secret trusts? Bad bad paper....be amazed if I passed that

Hogzy

Well that Equity paper went terribly.

Shocked Trustees duties (Duty to Invest) came up AGAIN after it came up in the last sitting.
Shocked not to see a full question on charitable trusts/cy pres,
Shocked that Secret trusts didnt come up.
Shocked that tracing didnt come up.
Shocked that estoppell and undue influence have come up despite them coming up on the last 5-6 papers.
Shocked Maxims didnt come up.

That was a DISGUSTINGLY SHOCKING paper.

smjsmj

Caoileann wrote: »

Equity...

What the hell was Q5?! and Q7.. strong v bird with something else?

Very tough paper. All the tips were wrong

yeh i thought it was a terrible reaaly disappointed. dono if this is rite but i answered q5 on presumption of advancemet. and q7 on strong v bird as i didnt know what else it could be and wanted to try and answer something.

definetly dont listen to tips anymore, gcd only got 4 just about as they advised injunction would be either, anton qp or mareva.

so so failed that paer.
so much for charities, secret trust, prob on resulting trust, tracing, dmc.
my fault at the same time for not doing specific performance or constructive notice

do everything for criminal if you are intending to take short cuts.

chapster

Equity today was delicious and anyone who had done a modicum of study for it would have thought the same.

Saying "ooh no cy-pres (or whatever) it's sooo unfair" is childish; the paper was extraordinarily doable.

LadyLily

chapster wrote: »

Equity today was delicious and anyone who had done a modicum of study for it would have thought the same.

Saying "ooh no cy-pres (or whatever) it's sooo unfair" is childish; the paper was extraordinarily doable.

I agree it was doable, definitely so but not for anyone who based it on them tips/predictions!

chapster

LadyLily wrote: »

I agree it was doable, definitely so but not for anyone who based it on them tips/predictions!

As far as I'm concerned, anyone basing their study on predictions deserves to fail. It is noted time and time again, both in the respective exam reports and the classes the grind schools give, that prediction is a fool's game.

The exams are regulating access to a profession and if there are people who aren't willing to do the work required to pass them they don't deserve the opportunity to enter the profession.

-aboutagirl-

I found Equity fine. Really glad I had done a fair bit of work on it though as if I had have been cramming and cutting corners it mightn't have worked out so well.

Was surprised by the paper as it is usually one of the more predictable ones - can definitely sympathise with those who focused their work on certain areas to the detriment of others!

evercloserunion

I thought the paper was pretty grand today; those City notes were way off in their predictions, but thankfully I hadn't put too much stock in them.

The classes of investment thing caught me off guard as I hadn't put too much time into it; I knew what the basic position was, but I called it the Trustee (Authorised Investment) Regulations instead of the Act/Order and said it was varied by the Minister for Justice, not Finance. Hopefully that won't cost me too dearly in the scheme of things.

Injunctions, poverty trust, rectification, and specific performance questions were really sweet.

LadyLily

chapster wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, anyone basing their study on predictions deserves to fail. It is noted time and time again, both in the respective exam reports and the classes the grind schools give, that prediction is a fool's game.

The exams are regulating access to a profession and if there are people who aren't willing to do the work required to pass them they don't deserve the opportunity to enter the profession.

I didnt do a prep school for these but I do know that grinds schools, while to cover their backs they say cover everything, they do put predictions and tips out there. My friends have been told of various "bankers". I think that (maybe!) some examiners dislike it and then decide to repeat last exam's questions or shake it up, as you said its a professional exam and they want people to get in for the right reasons, ie they understand and know the area of law!

smjsmj

yeh i agree absolutely that the paper was a do able paper if you had covered everything.
in march i done gcd course but those lectures didnt give tips so i studied most things
however, i took the equity predictions as gospel as i hate equity and wanted to do as little as possible, my own fault in that respect but i definetly would advise people to learn the majority of topics.

and can i say for the people who are in the conference room who go to the toilet will you please dont let the door bang! i was at the back of the room and it is so distracting.

Kamilat

evercloserunion wrote: »

I thought the paper was pretty grand today; those City notes were way off in their predictions, but thankfully I hadn't put too much stock in them.

The classes of investment thing caught me off guard as I hadn't put too much time into it; I knew what the basic position was, but I called it the Trustee (Authorised Investment) Regulations instead of the Act/Order and said it was varied by the Minister for Justice, not Finance. Hopefully that won't cost me too dearly in the scheme of things.

Injunctions, poverty trust, rectification, and specific performance questions were really sweet.

ah crap, I called it a regulation aswel instead of an order!

evercloserunion

Kamilat wrote: »

ah crap, I called it a regulation aswel instead of an order!

This might just be bias on my part, but I don't think we'll be crucified too heavily for it. We clearly understood that there was a statutory instrument which dealt with the issue and we knew the key part of its title, ie Trustee (Authorised Investments). We might lose out a bit, but especially since that part was only 4 marks I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I could be wrong though, and we could have failed :P

JCJCJC

I have equity passed so today's paper isn't a worry for me. If you found it easy - good for you, but I really don't like the posts I'm reading here piddling on people who didn't find it easy today. There are different strokes for different folks - doing a bad exam is enough of a set-back for someone without getting kicked further, don't feel superior because you liked the paper. I don't care if people decide to follow tips or predictions from a prep college or if they read their horoscope in the Daily Mail this morning and went by that - to each his own. If you are talking in terms of becoming a member of a profession, show some collegiality right now to another human being who will one day be your professional colleague.

Just my two cents.

JC

MDR25

hey can someone help me i need to buy the succession act where can i get it in dublin??

law girl

JCJCJC wrote: »

I have equity passed so today's paper isn't a worry for me. If you found it easy - good for you, but I really don't like the posts I'm reading here piddling on people who didn't find it easy today. There are different strokes for different folks - doing a bad exam is enough of a set-back for someone without getting kicked further, don't feel superior because you liked the paper. I don't care if people decide to follow tips or predictions from a prep college or if they read their horoscope in the Daily Mail this morning and went by that - to each his own. If you are talking in terms of becoming a member of a profession, show some collegiality right now to another human being who will one day be your professional colleague.

Just my two cents.

JC

Totally agree with your two cents on this. These exams are no walk in the park no matter what approach you take, level of intelligence or dedication as a student. Regardless of how much of any course you have covered walking into to that exam hall and sitting that paper can be quite over whelming for some people. It wouldn't kill people to be supportive of the fact...

LadyLily

well said JC...I thought my exam went terrible. I didn't base mine on predictions, but realistically nobody can cover everything, or at least I can't! And I think just because you don't cover everything does not equal laziness either or a handy way out... anyway upwards and onwards:p

freebooze4all

JCJCJC wrote: »

I have equity passed so today's paper isn't a worry for me. If you found it easy - good for you, but I really don't like the posts I'm reading here piddling on people who didn't find it easy today. There are different strokes for different folks - doing a bad exam is enough of a set-back for someone without getting kicked further, don't feel superior because you liked the paper. I don't care if people decide to follow tips or predictions from a prep college or if they read their horoscope in the Daily Mail this morning and went by that - to each his own. If you are talking in terms of becoming a member of a profession, show some collegiality right now to another human being who will one day be your professional colleague.

Just my two cents.

JC

I totally agree with this sentiment. If you did well in the paper, fair play. Why should you then s**t on on other people from your high horse when they didn't.

Yes, the exams are for entrance to a profession but I think most would agree that there is a huge amount of material and for various reason you may want to cut down on the topics you are covering as the exams approach. This will not mean that you do not 'know the law', you just will not know every area in the minute detail these exams require.

If you can find the time to learn the entire equity course, along with the entirety of three other courses (if you are sitting the exams for the first time) then well done. I don't see that as a reason to ridicule someone who has studied in a different way when they don't do well.

As JC says, just my two cents.

freebooze4all

I would also like to add that I haven't attended any prep courses for this set (which is my first) and I had a pretty short run in before the exams to study. I have covered most of the criminal course but would anyone have any advice on which topics to zone in on for the last two days. I'm thinking the obvious stuff like defences, offences against the person (both fatal and non-fatal), sexual offences and inchoate offences might get me through.

I have no past papers so I am almost flying blind here!

MoneyMilo

I found today alright. I can understand why people would be pissed off though. I would've loved a secret trust question. The trusteeship Q was disconcertingly vague but hard to do terrible on it I guess. The presumption of advancement one was a strange one..handy though. I didn't nail any question by any means but rather did alright in each.. I hope that's enough


Predictions for equity is one thing, but thoughts on Property? Could the examiner possibly veer off course from what have been 3 similar past papers?? I'm gonna have nightmares of a paper full of feudal and tenure.. *shudder*

JCJCJC

freebooze4all wrote: »

This will not mean that you do not 'know the law', you just will not know every area in the minute detail these exams require.

Remember what Mr Justice Carney said in the leave application after Mr. Padraig Nally's first trial when Davis wasn't opened to him by either counsel, and remember that he is a hugely experienced HC judge who was conducting a murder trial:

Now, that judgment obviously has caused me great difficulty in this case. It was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court (and) was not opened to me, so I was not able to consider matters in the light of it. I don’t accept Mr Grehan’s suggestion that even an experienced trial judge at the end of such a fraught trial is going to have bubbling at the top of his mind everything that the superior court might have said a decade ago.

We're supposed to have bubbling at the tops of our minds this week everything the Irish, British, Canadian and Australian courts have said for the past 150 years or so, not to mention the sad sods in Strasbourg and Brussels. If Judge PC can forget a major case, then - to err is human.

JC

randomuser77

Trying to get my head around the amount of statutory provisions for Offences against Property and it's killing me. Just how much detail is required? Will vague details suffice for some of the lesser important crimes, like say, making off without payment?

law girl

Just a quick one re property...

March 2011, question 8, I'm just wondering what that question referred to? Licences question? I just can't remember and am just missing that question..I think it had something to do with red and George, (obviously I remember the important aspect of the question!)

frustratedTC

Q8 was easements. Trying to study them at the moment, they're killing me. What changes have been made? Acquisition of easements is taking me ages to get have common law prescription and lost modern grant been abolished?

Whats everyone focusing in on for property? Im very stuck for time so cutting it majorly!!

I also think JC that ur right each to their own, they are tough exams, but this is a competition and ppl shouldn't be looking down on others who do the prep courses either, every1 has a diff way of preparing

law girl

thanks for that!

I think it's a real tough one this year in terms of what you can cut, how likely is it that treasure trove and family property will be on the paper again as per the last two, but then again you'd hate to leave them out!

You could leave landlord and tenant out, possibly easements, estates and settled land...

I don't know though..it's tough

frustratedTC

its hard to know really what 'safe' amount can be left out!

Im thinking to leave out
estates
hybrid estates
landlord and tenant
settled land and land reg

Any thoughts??

wez99950

For property I'm covering:
Unreg
Reg
Tenure
Equity
Treasure trove
Co-ownership
Family
Succession
Ap
Easements & profits

Would u say I'd be pretty covered with that? Wrecked after equity and with a bad nights sleep, it's not going well!

I'm gonna try and cover mortgages, can anyone help and tell me what are the key areas of mortgages? Judgment yes, anything else is a necessity?

Any help appreciated!

law girl

wez99950 wrote: »

For property I'm covering:
Unreg
Reg
Tenure
Equity
Treasure trove
Co-ownership
Family
Succession
Ap
Easements & profits

Would u say I'd be pretty covered with that? Wrecked after equity and with a bad nights sleep, it's not going well!

I'm gonna try and cover mortgages, can anyone help and tell me what are the key areas of mortgages? Judgment yes, anything else is a necessity?

Any help appreciated!

I think there was a question previously on mortgages with registered land unregistered land and the powers of the mortgagee...

But I also believe that the LCLRA made some changes in this area and now I'm confused!!!

More often then not its judgement mortgages but the style of the proper paper I feel is changing so who knows.

evercloserunion

MDR25 wrote: »

hey can someone help me i need to buy the succession act where can i get it in dublin??

You can get it in the Government Publications Office, Sales Dept, on Molesworth St (just off Kildare St).