FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

moonbino

Miss_F wrote: »

moonbino wrote: »

I am doing Criminal, Property, Tort and Equity but I want to drop Equity and do Contract instead. Can someone please recommend a topics list for Contract. Thanks! Very desperate here!

Iam also doing Contract not a whole lot to leave out here but in my opinion main topics would be:

Offer & Acceptance
Consideration
Estoppel
Capacity (comes up a fair bit usually regarding children)
Privity
Misrepresentation
Mistake
Illegality
Discharge
Remedies

Thats just my opinion and what iam doing others may have a different view.

Thank you so much Miss_F. All the best with your exams. :-)

JCJCJC

moonbino wrote: »

Thank you so much Miss_F. All the best with your exams. :-)

Do Damages as well, Prof Robt Clarke (FE1 external examiner) published an article on it which you'll get on Westlaw and it came up, I think in Oct 2010 as an essay question - read his article, it's all in there.

JCJCJC

randomuser77 wrote: »

Don't suppose you could suggest specific cases or areas that are worth updating?

Indeed I could! These are the 2010 cases:

Dellway v Nama, IEHC (but look at the eventual SC outcome as well)
Meadows v MinJELR
Digital Right Ireland v Min Comms
LK (A Minor) v Independent Star
Hickey v Sunday Newspapers
Doherty v Govt Irl
DPP v McCrea
Byrne v DPP
Lynch v MJELR
MJELR v Adach
O'Murchu v Taoiseach
O'Maicin v Eire
Carlin v DPP
Hygiea v Ir Med Bd.
X v MJELR
Unite v Min Fin.
McKenzie v Min Fin.
Blehein v Min Health
O'Sullivan ve CEO Prison Service
Temple St v D

Check if there was a SC subsequent decision on any of those, but your examiner in early 2011 thought they were all very important, and I think one or two came up subsequently as case-note questions. He has a real 'thing' about the right to fair procedures - NB it is not a free-standing right. It only arises when another right is invaded. So, if for example a County Council proposed to compulsorily acquire your farm, that's an invasion of your property rights. ONLY THEN does the right to fair procedures arise - ok? Make that point clearly if you can because he has a real bee in his butt about it. Can't help you on the 2011 cases, but perhaps he'll do another lecture in TCD before the exams and review 2011.

JC

moonbino

JCJCJC wrote: »

moonbino wrote: »

Thank you so much Miss_F. All the best with your exams. :-)

Do Damages as well, Prof Robt Clarke (FE1 external examiner) published an article on it which you'll get on Westlaw and it came up, I think in Oct 2010 as an essay question - read his article, it's all in there.

Thank you JCJCJC! :-)

t2340

Thanks JC. Gonna plough through it for the time being so!

Does anyone have tort exam papers and reports? I have EU, Constitutional, Company and Equity that I can swap?

KMPT

Hi everyone. Would anyone have the past exam papers and examiner reports for Contract 2009, 2010, and 2011? Or if you only have sample answers that would be good. I can email you 2007-2010 sample answers for Constitution, Company, EU and Criminal. Thanks.

randomuser77

JCJCJC wrote: »

Indeed I could! These are the 2010 cases:

Dellway v Nama, IEHC (but look at the eventual SC outcome as well)
Meadows v MinJELR
Digital Right Ireland v Min Comms
LK (A Minor) v Independent Star
Hickey v Sunday Newspapers
Doherty v Govt Irl
DPP v McCrea
Byrne v DPP
Lynch v MJELR
MJELR v Adach
O'Murchu v Taoiseach
O'Maicin v Eire
Carlin v DPP
Hygiea v Ir Med Bd.
X v MJELR
Unite v Min Fin.
McKenzie v Min Fin.
Blehein v Min Health
O'Sullivan ve CEO Prison Service
Temple St v D

Check if there was a SC subsequent decision on any of those, but your examiner in early 2011 thought they were all very important, and I think one or two came up subsequently as case-note questions. He has a real 'thing' about the right to fair procedures - NB it is not a free-standing right. It only arises when another right is invaded. So, if for example a County Council proposed to compulsorily acquire your farm, that's an invasion of your property rights. ONLY THEN does the right to fair procedures arise - ok? Make that point clearly if you can because he has a real bee in his butt about it. Can't help you on the 2011 cases, but perhaps he'll do another lecture in TCD before the exams and review 2011.

JC

JC, you are an absolute legend!

M.victory1

Does any1 have an equity and criminal grid??

JCJCJC

randomuser77 wrote: »

JC, you are an absolute legend!

Nah. I just went along to the dude's lecture last year with Hogzy and we got the handout and had a very polite cup of TCD-tea with him afterwards without pretending we were the lowest form of life, FE1 cannon-fodder. But thanks anyway.

JC

filosoraptor

JCJCJC wrote: »

This isn't a mathematical science, as they say. What one of us finds easy might be very difficult for another. I'm ok on property, was good at it in college and did a Final Year Project on adverse possession etc so I wouldn't be afraid of the exam, but I would personally find Tort ok too - in fact, I've passed Tort twice in the FE1s due to only getting two at the first attempt. Property has good banker topics, you get two succession questions and one on adverse possession usually. After that, you make a selection from a lucky-bag of topics and that's where the grid comes in useful, things like Treasure Trove are easy and quick to study and if the question comes up you'll be delighted. You can really use the cross-over knowledge by saying stuff like 'Webb v Ireland was a landmark case that established not only the state of the law on buried objects simpliciter, but also dealt with important points of law in relation to matters including sovereignty and promissory estoppel'. You are then showing that you know the case and the subject well.

For me, EU is a nightmare, but I accept that many people find it straightforward, and more luck to them. I'm here right now grappling with procedures before the EU courts. Awful stuff.

JC

Good man JC, there's no end to your giving! Appreciate it anyway. Think I'm gonna take Property as my 3rd. From anyone I've talked to it sounds like its up there as one of the easiest due to its predictability.

On an unrelated note, do you, or anyone else, know whether you should be looking for a Traineeship or Summer Internship after having past 3, or either as whatever you can get you'd be lucky?!? Or even is there a separate thread dedicated to this on here somewhere??

JCJCJC

filosoraptor wrote: »

Good man JC, there's no end to your giving! Appreciate it anyway. Think I'm gonna take Property as my 3rd. From anyone I've talked to it sounds like its up there as one of the easiest due to its predictability.

On an unrelated note, do you, or anyone else, know whether you should be looking for a Traineeship or Summer Internship after having past 3, or either as whatever you can get you'd be lucky?!? Or even is there a separate thread dedicated to this on here somewhere??

LMAO here! A thread on traineeships right now would be a very short one, in my humble. After three? I have six passed and won't expect anything until I have all eight, and I'm probably even looking at a TC without any pay then. A summer internship is really a fancy name for a summer job in a solicitors' office. It beats washing cars, driving silage trailers and packing shelves I suppose, but with courts on vacation there won't be a lot of excitement. Sorry to sound such a low note but it's horrendous out there. I know unemployed young solicitors who would now work for what used to be trainee's wages. Well gone are the days when a practise would continue to pay your trainee wages while you were in Blackhall. I know one solicitor who paid 135k for a new 05 Mercedes CL. He asked me lately if I knew anyone who'd possibly give 15k for it, all he is being offered is 5k. It has been parked for two years because he can't any longer afford to tax and insure it. Times are really tough, just persevere with your studies and hope the recession ends around about when your studies do.

JC

lbcoconut

Hi, just wondering if any of you had a copy of the criminal, contract, property or equity exam paper from April 2011/Oct 2011 would they be able to pm me?

banterful

Hi all,

Just wondering if anyone has seen the Oct 11 Property exam report? No sign of it yet in the prep course I'm doing but I know the other subjects are out so presume it's out there! If anyone has it would be happy to swap materials from any of the other subjects - have pretty much all exam grids, sample answers up to Oct 2010, etc.

Finally, anyone have up to date griffith sample answers i.e. Oct 2010 answers? Again, happy to send on anything you need in return...

PM me if interested. Cheers!

Amre17

Hi all,

Hope study is going well..

Could someone tell me which course syllabus is bigger - EU or Constitutional??

Doing one this sitting but won't be starting the subject for another week or so so im eager to take on the smaller subject even if it's only marginal!

Thanking you all..

JCJCJC

Amre17 wrote: »

Hi all,

Hope study is going well..

Could someone tell me which course syllabus is bigger - EU or Constitutional??

Doing one this sitting but won't be starting the subject for another week or so so im eager to take on the smaller subject even if it's only marginal!

Thanking you all..

400 pages in my IC 2009 Constitutional manual, 520 pages in the 2011-12 GCD EU manual...that tells you I think.

JC

Amre17

JCJCJC wrote: »

Amre17 wrote: »

Hi all,

Hope study is going well..

Could someone tell me which course syllabus is bigger - EU or Constitutional??

Doing one this sitting but won't be starting the subject for another week or so so im eager to take on the smaller subject even if it's only marginal!

Thanking you all..

400 pages in my IC 2009 Constitutional manual, 520 pages in the 2011-12 GCD EU manual...that tells you I think.

JC

Makes sense! That's my mind made up.. Thanks JC

randomuser77

JCJCJC wrote: »

LMAO here! A thread on traineeships right now would be a very short one, in my humble. After three? I have six passed and won't expect anything until I have all eight, and I'm probably even looking at a TC without any pay then. A summer internship is really a fancy name for a summer job in a solicitors' office. It beats washing cars, driving silage trailers and packing shelves I suppose, but with courts on vacation there won't be a lot of excitement. Sorry to sound such a low note but it's horrendous out there. I know unemployed young solicitors who would now work for what used to be trainee's wages. Well gone are the days when a practise would continue to pay your trainee wages while you were in Blackhall. I know one solicitor who paid 135k for a new 05 Mercedes CL. He asked me lately if I knew anyone who'd possibly give 15k for it, all he is being offered is 5k. It has been parked for two years because he can't any longer afford to tax and insure it. Times are really tough, just persevere with your studies and hope the recession ends around about when your studies do.

JC

Sorry JC, legend or not, I have to disagree with you on this. I got a summer internship with one of the top five last summer, just after my final year and before sitting any FE1s; they've since offered me a traineeship. As it happens, most of the people on the summer internship with me had not even reached final year, so I was one of the older people on the programme. My advice to anyone is that you should absolutely apply for as many internships as you can and get as much experience under your belt as quickly as you can manage. What helped me was that I did BCL (Clinical) in UCC which meant I came out of college with almost a year's work experience + some useful contacts and references.

I suggest you apply to every firm you can, especially the big firms (but not just the top five) as the trend among them is the use the internship programme to feed into their trainee programmes. If you can't get into any of those firms (no shame in that; I've had plenty of refusals) then take work anywhere else. Work for free if you can afford to.

JCJCJC

randomuser77 wrote: »

Sorry JC, legend or not, I have to disagree with you on this. /QUOTE]

No worries. I really don't know anything about firms as big as the 'big 5', I'm focussing on 2-5 person practises in smaller rural towns. They wouldn't have anything as structured and organised as an internship programme, they'd take trainees based more on knowing the person, and on getting some work through that person's network of social and family contacts. All those small practises are really feeling the bite of the recession now, conveyancing was good to them all over the past ten years.

Gortnakilla12

Hey all!
I thought Tort was my biggest problem! but to be honest once I broke it down it's not too bad! what is really wrecking my head is criminal and constitutional! Don't know how im gonna get them all covered! Any one got any tips on either one? I'd really love to get my 3 this time! I starting to get so nervous!!

randomuser77

JCJCJC wrote: »

randomuser77 wrote: »

Sorry JC, legend or not, I have to disagree with you on this. /QUOTE]

No worries. I really don't know anything about firms as big as the 'big 5', I'm focussing on 2-5 person practises in smaller rural towns. They wouldn't have anything as structured and organised as an internship programme, they'd take trainees based more on knowing the person, and on getting some work through that person's network of social and family contacts. All those small practises are really feeling the bite of the recession now, conveyancing was good to them all over the past ten years.

Requirements are different all right if you're aiming for a smaller firm, but I think an internship will boost your prospects regardless of what sort of firm you're aiming for. If you can get an internship with one of the big firms then there's a possibility of them retaining you. Even if they don't, you have it for your CV, which will impress any firm, small or otherwise. Besides all of that, the big firms try to give you actual meaningful work and skills development, which can only increase your chances of making an impression if you can get your foot in any door at all.

True enough, work at smaller firms is very hard to come by and can only be obtained almost exclusively on the basis that you say (social and family contacts etc - being a relative of a client would help too). Even if you can get an internship in a small firm, you're not likely to see very much meaningful work for much of the time, but you'll eventually get something, and if you have experience you maximise your chances of doing the job well and making an impression.

That's my experience anyway. I've had over a year of legal work experience in over four different offices now and I find that the familiarity I've gotten with legal practice has helped me make the most of the opportunities I've received. It's also given me a certain focus as I've discovered what areas of law I prefer (tax primarily) which is nice to know by itself, but is also useful for interviews as it illustrates ambition and commitment etc etc *insert interviewer pleasing buzz words here*

JCJCJC

randomuser77 wrote: »

JCJCJC wrote: »

Requirements are different all right if you're aiming for a smaller firm, but I think an internship will boost your prospects regardless of what sort of firm you're aiming for. If you can get an internship with one of the big firms then there's a possibility of them retaining you. Even if they don't, you have it for your CV, which will impress any firm, small or otherwise. Besides all of that, the big firms try to give you actual meaningful work and skills development, which can only increase your chances of making an impression if you can get your foot in any door at all.

True enough, work at smaller firms is very hard to come by and can only be obtained almost exclusively on the basis that you say (social and family contacts etc - being a relative of a client would help too). At such firms you're not likely to see very much meaningful work, but you'll eventually get something, and if you have experience you maximise your chances of doing the job well and making an impression.

That's my experience anyway. I've had over a year of legal work experience in over four different offices now and I find that the familiarity I've gotten with legal practice has helped me make the most of the opportunities I've received. It's also given me a certain focus as I've discovered what areas of law I prefer (tax primarily) which is nice to know by itself, but is also useful for interviews as it illustrates ambition and commitment etc etc *insert interviewer pleasing buzz words here*

Well, we certainly are all different. The guy who has promised me a TC once I have the FE1s passed pulls me in now and then if something interesting is going on. I've been in the Supreme Court twice with him in the past year, all the other courts, An Bord Pleanala oral hearings, EAT hearings etc and several internal company disciplinary hearings. He does a lot of employment law and general litigation. It's certainly interesting stuff.

randomuser77

JCJCJC wrote: »

randomuser77 wrote: »

Well, we certainly are all different. The guy who has promised me a TC once I have the FE1s passed pulls me in now and then if something interesting is going on. I've been in the Supreme Court twice with him in the past year, all the other courts, An Bord Pleanala oral hearings, EAT hearings etc and several internal company disciplinary hearings. He does a lot of employment law and general litigation. It's certainly interesting stuff.

Nice! That's a plus about small firms, once you've built a rapport and they trust you with work you'll get to see a wider variety of stuff than in the larger firms which tend to pigeon-hole you into certain practice areas (although that suits me fine, I really am rather fond of tax law).

randomuser77

JCJCJC wrote: »

randomuser77 wrote: »

Well, we certainly are all different. The guy who has promised me a TC once I have the FE1s passed pulls me in now and then if something interesting is going on. I've been in the Supreme Court twice with him in the past year, all the other courts, An Bord Pleanala oral hearings, EAT hearings etc and several internal company disciplinary hearings. He does a lot of employment law and general litigation. It's certainly interesting stuff.

By the way, just to clarify, I wasn't saying there isn't meaningful work to be had in small firms, I was saying you're less likely to see it until you've built up a rapport. I'm not sure if that's the impression you had gotten from my post but I've tidied up the wording anyway to reflect what I meant.

Fe1erere

Hey there, just going over past sample answers, little problem!
October 2009, Q.8. Sample answer given is for Proprietary Estoppel....
April 2008, Q.4. Sample answer given is for Promissory Estoppel..
It is the Same Question!! Is the remedy optional??:eek:

randomuser77

I'm reading a sentence from the case of Maher v Attorney General [1973] IR 140 and it just doesn't make sense to me. It actually seems to contradict itself. What do others make of this:

"Article 15, s. 4, sub-s. 2, of the Constitution lays down that every law enacted by the Oireachtas which is in any respect repugnant to the Constitution or to any provision thereof shall, but to the extent only of such repugnancy, be invalid; therefore there is a presumption that a statute or a statutory provision is not intended to be constitutionally operative only as an entirety. This presumption, however, may be rebutted if it can be shown that, after a part has been held unconstitutional, the remainder may be held to stand independently and legally operable as representing the will of the legislature. But if what remains is so inextricably bound up with the part held invalid that the remainder cannot survive independently, or if the remainder would not represent the legislative intent, the remaining part will not be severed and given constitutional validity."

That to me says that it is presumed that Art 15.4.2 allows a statute to stand even if part is repugnant. But it then says that this presumption can be rebutted if it can be shown that the statute can stand even if part is repugnant. Am I going crazy?

Edit: I've found an answer to this issue in an article by David Gwynn Morgan which states:

“This presumption may be rebutted if it can be shown that, after a part has been held unconstitutional, the remainder may be held to stand independently and legally operable as representing the will of the legislature. But if what remains is so inextricably bound up with the part held valid that the remainder cannot survive independently, or if the remainder would not represent the legislative intent, the remaining part will not be severed and given constitutional validity

…

The point which immediately springs to mind on reading the passage quoted is that the words italicised enunciate a presumption in favour of allowing a statute to be severed; whereas the very next sentence assumes the opposite, in that it states that a presumption needs to be rebutted before the remainder of the statute can be upheld. It is submitted, with respect, that the words italicised are a correct deduction from Art. 15.4.2° (which is stated in the first sentence of the extract), and that, consequently, the sentence coming after the words italicised is mistaken. If this submission be correct, then there is a presumption that, if the invalid parts of a statute have been severed, the remaining parts can be upheld.

LawNerd2011

I'm sitting Company (amongst others) in March. I've done no study for it yet. Somebody a number of weeks ago said they only studied 10 topics for it and passed. What were those 10 topics?? Worried I'll fail it as my strengths lie elsewhere! TotaLLY UP S**T Creek at the min! Sob!

Gortnakilla12

Hey everyone!
I'm sitting Tort, Equity, Criminal and constitutional in March! I'm finding constitutional fairly hefty! I'm wondering if anyone has any tips on what to DEFINATELY do and any I can leave out? thanks a millon! I'm fairly tearing my hair out!!

LawNerd2011

Hey everyone!

Panicking a little at the min.

Would I be ok covering the following topics for Company:

1. Incorporation;
2. SLP;
3. Ultra Vires;
4. Corporate Authority;
5. Directors (EVERYTHING);
6. Examinership, Receivership, Liquidations & Disposition of Assets;
7. Meetings;
8. Corporate Borrowings; and
9. Retention of Title Clauses.

I will not be covering anything else, as I’ve no time as I work every Thurs & Fri. Any help would be richly appreciated. Would I be safe with these or taking a huge risk?

randomuser77

LawNerd2011 wrote: »

Hey everyone!

Panicking a little at the min.

Would I be ok covering the following topics for Company:

1. Incorporation;
2. SLP;
3. Ultra Vires;
4. Corporate Authority;
5. Directors (EVERYTHING);
6. Examinership, Receivership, Liquidations & Disposition of Assets;
7. Meetings;
8. Corporate Borrowings; and
9. Retention of Title Clauses.

I will not be covering anything else, as I’ve no time as I work every Thurs & Fri. Any help would be richly appreciated. Would I be safe with these or taking a huge risk?

Obviously it's difficult to say, but when I sat the exam last Oct I had studied even less than that and still had 5 topics. I worked out that if I studied approximately the topics you're studying then I would be covered for every exam in the last 8 sittings (or something like that).

I did:

Consequences of Incorporation (which hasn't been up since April 08)
Corporate Personality/SLP
Corporate Contracts/Authority
Ultra Vires
Directors (all of it - absolutely necessary you do all of these topics)
Shareholder protections and remedies
Corporate Borrowings
Retention of Title Clauses
Winding up
Disposition of Companies Assets

So as you can see, I didn't do Examinership, Receivership, and Meetings while you are. Although, I did do shareholders protections and you're not. I think you're safe though, Examinership or Receivership looks likes it's due a run.

sally208

Hi,

I have a constitutional law manual. Just wondering does anyone want to swap for a property manual.