FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Kamilat

Eu

Hi guys, could someone tell me please what came up in the Eu exams in April & October 2011? Just general topics. Thanks

MoneyMilo

What is the best source for preparing case notes? When I search 'Simmenthal' say, I get all sorts of results. It's as if there are lots of different Simmenthal cases because there appears to be different case numbers after some of the titles. How do I know which is the main judgment or case that I will be asked about? Thanks

Stimorol

Hi Everyone,

Can somebody please reasure me that I have studied enough topics for Criminal please ))

Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Common Design, Homicide, Non-Fatal Offences Ag. Person, Sexual Offences, Property offences, All of Defences material, I also covered Procedures and Characteristics & Classification of crime but hope that it won't turn up since I won't score that many points and it will just be a back up sort of.

Thanks. I'm just not sure if it is enough or not

chops018

Stimorol wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

Can somebody please reasure me that I have studied enough topics for Criminal please ))

Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Common Design, Homicide, Non-Fatal Offences Ag. Person, Sexual Offences, Property offences, All of Defences material, I also covered Procedures and Characteristics & Classification of crime but hope that it won't turn up since I won't score that many points and it will just be a back up sort of.

Thanks. I'm just not sure if it is enough or not

Looks like plenty, hard to leave much out for criminal though. I myself am doing: Offences Against the person, Offences Against property, Definition of a Crime, Mens Rea - Intention/Recklessness, the defences, special criminal court and court of criminal appeal, arrest, bail and right to silence, types of a crime.

That's 8 topics but as we know the questions may mix topics so it is hard to be 100% sure, however there is usually always a question on either definition of a crime, types of crime, arrest, bail and right to silence or a question on the courts, also there is always a question on a defence (usually). The the rest usually consist of questions that may include numerous offences and a possible defence, they may be problem questions and part questions, sometimes just consisting of say sexual offences and others may mix sexual offences and say manslaughter with the defence of involuntary intoxication.

If you have a good knowledge of the topics above you should be alright, I would not have the last few as back ups though, I would have them well known.

Stimorol

chops018 wrote: »

Looks like plenty, hard to leave much out for criminal though. I myself am doing: Offences Against the person, Offences Against property, Definition of a Crime, Mens Rea - Intention/Recklessness, the defences, special criminal court and court of criminal appeal, arrest, bail and right to silence, types of a crime.

That's 8 topics but as we know the questions may mix topics so it is hard to be 100% sure, however there is usually always a question on either definition of a crime, types of crime, arrest, bail and right to silence or a question on the courts, also there is always a question on a defence (usually). The the rest usually consist of questions that may include numerous offences and a possible defence, they may be problem questions and part questions, sometimes just consisting of say sexual offences and others may mix sexual offences and say manslaughter with the defence of involuntary intoxication.

If you have a good knowledge of the topics above you should be alright, I would not have the last few as back ups though, I would have them well known.

Thanks, I was afraid that Definition of a Crime & court stuff would be too importan to leave out.

JCJCJC

MoneyMilo wrote: »

What is the best source for preparing case notes? When I search 'Simmenthal' say, I get all sorts of results. It's as if there are lots of different Simmenthal cases because there appears to be different case numbers after some of the titles. How do I know which is the main judgment or case that I will be asked about? Thanks

Tighten up your search criteria. Google in quotation marks "Simmenthal case note" and you'll get lots. I found this useful page just now, doing just that.

LawNerd2011

Just saw this on the Law Society website, was on the website and clicked into the News Section to see what was going on. I just thought this really sums up the Law Society.

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Pages/News/Radio-Interviews-re-Solicitor-Fees/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast of the 2 radio shows, they put up a transcript of them. It’s just so the Law Society. Like they probably had some poor old stenographer typing frantically to get down everything that was said when a simple link to an audio recording or podcast would have sufficed. The Law Society needs to move out of the dark ages!

t2340

Hi guys,

Looking for recent Tort and Criminal Exam Grids, can swap for Contract, Equity, Company Constitutional or sample answers.

Thanks

Kildaregal

Hi All, I am hoping someone may be able to help with this company q3 oct 2010 - In the report it says that Hughs wife is connected to him. Does that mean tha she could be prosecuted also as a connected person, or does it mean even though she is fronting the new company Hugh can still be prosecuted as a connected person? ...If that makes sense..Thanks!!

Ned_led16

t2340 wrote: »

Hi guys,

Looking for recent Tort and Criminal Exam Grids, can swap for Contract, Equity, Company Constitutional or sample answers.

Thanks

I have a tort grid latest and an old crim law grid (last sitting or March 2010)
PM email address

brannid3

Anyone not get their letter confirming their payment for exams?

chops018

brannid3 wrote: »

Anyone not get their letter confirming their payment for exams?

Yes. Got a letter a few days after I sent my application confirming my payment and it also said I would receive another letter closer to the exams.

donners87

would anyone have a Tort grid they could send me??

garethj

Hi Guys

Hope study is going well! Could well do with some Constitutional Law sample answers please if someone has them? I can offer sample answers for all other 7 subjects in return. Thanks a million

garethj

Hi Guys

Looking for the above. Can swap sample answers and or grids for all other subjects. Thanks

chops018

Wondering will there most likely be a question on adverse possession on property due to this..

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/0ea11f190107f695802579a6004472e2?OpenDocument

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/squatter-wins-rights-to-widows-house-30-years-after-he-broke-in-3023205.html

Or would they already have the exam made up?

garethj

chops018 wrote: »

Wondering will there most likely be a question on adverse possession on property due to this..

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/0ea11f190107f695802579a6004472e2?OpenDocument

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/squatter-wins-rights-to-widows-house-30-years-after-he-broke-in-3023205.html

Or would they already have the exam made up?

There will most likely be a question on it regardless. It comes up most papers (If I can remember correctly) but it will definitely be good to have a knowledge of this recent judgment.

birdie89

could someone tell me what came up in the oct 2011 paper for criminal?

the exam paper and reports i have must be mistaken because they dont seem to relate to each other!

thanks

Ned_led16

HI all

Any reasons why adverse possession or treasure trove WONT come up in next sitting?? there nice topics but im unsure they will return this sitting! any thoughts would be appreciated!!

chops018

Ned_led16 wrote: »

HI all

Any reasons why adverse possession or treasure trove WONT come up in next sitting?? there nice topics but im unsure they will return this sitting! any thoughts would be appreciated!!

Well as I posted above there was a judgement just recently given on adverse possession in the Supreme Court so more than likely it will come up. As for treasure trove, that and finding objects in or on land seem to come up quite a bit. Hopefully they do as they are nice topics and if those and the two succession questions are done with one more then it looks like a good chance of passing the paper with a little more ease than the other exams. Let's just hope the examiner doesn't put in all the awkward topics like feudalism and tenure and the like.

UberStressed

Hi, Does anyone have any notes on Treasure Trove/Findings on land that they could pass on? Or recommend a good/accessible source for getting info? My manual doesn't cover it?
Thanks!

UberStressed

Has anyone heard what is predicted to come up in Company this round? I know it's not wise to bank on them, but good for a bit of extra focus!!

chops018

UberStressed wrote: »

Hi, Does anyone have any notes on Treasure Trove/Findings on land that they could pass on? Or recommend a good/accessible source for getting info? My manual doesn't cover it?
Thanks!

Well for finding things in or on land some cases would be: Armory .v. Delamirie (1722) - it was on finders rights, they held that the priority of rights to possession say that a finder has better title to property if he/she finds it over everyone except the true owner.

Another case on finding objects is: Parker .v. British Airways Board (1982) - here a passenger found a gold bracelet on the floor of an airport. He handed it in, however the airway tried to keep the bracelet and he challenged this. It was said in this case that the owner of the land that the object is found on is usually taken to have better title to the lost property than a passer by. However they did note exceptions, such as places where the public would have access to routinely i.e. the airport. and in that case the finder will have a stronger case. Here the court ruled in favour of Parker.

It is also important to note that the finder must take reasonable steps to find the true owner.

The above are cases of objects found on the land, if it is found in the land the owner of the land will have more strength. Elwes .v. Brigg (1886) demonstrated this, here a pre-historic boat was embedded in the soil and was discovered by the lessees. However the lessor was found to have better title to the property found. It was said that: "the lessor was in possession of the ground, not merely the surface, but of everything that lay beneath the surface down to the centre of the earth and consequently in possession of the boat."

Another case that distinguished items found in or on land was: Waverly Borough Council .v. Fletcher (1995) - it was said that the owner of land has a superior right if the object is in the land, while the finder is superior if the object is found on land, if the owner has not manifested an intention to control the land and things upon it. This case involved an item found in the land in a park, thus the owner was given superiority, they did note however that the fact it was a park and if it had been an object found on the land rather than in the land then the finder would have superiority.

As for treasure trove, the main case would be Webb .v. Ireland (1988) - where a hoard was found that included a gold chalice. The plaintiffs were told by the museum that they would be "honourably treated" if they gave up the hoard. The case made its way to the Supreme Court after the museum didn't follow through. Finlay J. said that the plaintiffs did not have a prima facie title to the hoard. The landowners had a superior right, to which the State succeeded an agreement. The argument then came to whether the State had a prerogative right to Treasure Trove, as the defendant could claim title and the plaintiff a reward. Article 10 of the constitution (state dominion over mineral rights) was used to ground the defendants claim to title. However the plaintiffs were grounded to have a legitimate expectation to be honourably treated and had a right to an reward. As a result of this case section 2(1) of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994 was created which provides:
"Without prejudice to any other rights howsoever arising in relation to any archaeological object found before the coming into operation of this section, there shall stand vested in the state ownership of an archaeological object found in the State after coming into operation of this section where such an object has no known owner when it was found".

Hope this helps.

JCJCJC

chops018 wrote: »

Well as I posted above there was a judgement just recently given on adverse possession in the Supreme Court so more than likely it will come up. As for treasure trove, that and finding objects in or on land seem to come up quite a bit. Hopefully they do as they are nice topics and if those and the two succession questions are done with one more then it looks like a good chance of passing the paper with a little more ease than the other exams. Let's just hope the examiner doesn't put in all the awkward topics like feudalism and tenure and the like.

The adverse possession aspect of that case was relatively straightforward and unremarkable, it doesn't break any new ground. What i thought was perhaps query-able was, (1) the squatter reportedly broke into the property - under the doctrine of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario I would have thought that breaking in contravened nec vi - no violence. (2) The squatter heard of the vacant house through an auctioneering firm where he worked - surely some sort of privilege or fiduciary duty must apply to an auctioneering firm, who are subject to a licensing regime. It seems fundamentally wrong that he would profit from information he came to have in a capacity like that.

Just my two cents - I'm interested in the law on AP having done a thesis on it.

The far more interesting aspect of the case, to me at any rate, is the absolute confirmation that 'State Agencies' is still to be very strictly and narrowly interpreted per the Statute of Limitations for calculating limitation periods. It is now almost routine for local authorities to lose their properties to adverse possession, because the twelve-year limitation period applies - they are not the State. However, I wonder if an argument of some sort could be developed based on the supremacy of EU law which casts the net very widely in relation to direct effect, per cases like Marshall and Foster. No-one would argue that a local authority wouldn't be within the scope of direct effect under EU law as an emanation of state, so why can't they have the corrollary benefit from that in a case under the '57 Act?

JC

JCJCJC

I'm here gnashing my gums on the 2010 IC company law manual. It has far too many typos, spelling errors and badly-composed sentences. It leaves me with the impression that it was typed by a person with limited legal vocabulary from a recording made by someone else who didn't subsequently bother to proof-read it. Grrrr!!! it breaks my concentration, limited as it is, to have to stop so often to try to decipher what the writer may have meant.
For example, on page 106, it twice describes a share as a "chosen action" rather than a chose in action. I reckon Tom Courtney would give my script 'the hairy eyeball' if I wrote down what IC printed.

End of rant...

JC

JCJCJC

UberStressed wrote: »

Hi, Does anyone have any notes on Treasure Trove/Findings on land that they could pass on? Or recommend a good/accessible source for getting info? My manual doesn't cover it?
Thanks!

Lyall, Wylie and Pearse & Mee at least have good chapters on it, and it's worth googling. In addition to what has been said, I would make a few points in an answer -
1) Under common law, TT was objects made predominantly of gold or silver - 51% minimum per Denning in Overend Farms c. 1952. Under the Irish statute law, any material is now covered - wood, stone, glass, paper. leather etc. Public policy shifted from swelling the King's war coffers to protecting historical heritage. Mention this if the found object is brass or bronze in particular.
2) the SC in Webb hinted that legislation was required, hint was taken.
3) Webb is hugely important - several issues. Survival (or not) of Crown prerogative, Legitimate expectation as has been mentioned, and ownership of buried objects. The case comes up in constitutional law and in equity as well. Also important because it was practically the only case.
4) mention the old doctrine of cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelam ut usque ad inferos - whoever owns the land owns up to the heavens and all the way down to hell - buried objects tend to run with the land. Bernstien v Skyview blew a hole in that, the doctrine had to yield to modern times, a landowner can't prohibit aircraft from flying overhead. There was a case about a construction crane overflying a building in its arc, can't remember it just now, but the judge put a stay on his order for the expected duration of the construction project, neat answer.

It's a very easy area, anyone should do it I think.

JC

Edit: Crane case: Woolerton and Wilson Ltd v. Richard Costain Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 411 found here at page 8, worth a glance at least.

chops018

JCJCJC wrote: »

The adverse possession aspect of that case was relatively straightforward and unremarkable, it doesn't break any new ground. What i thought was perhaps query-able was, (1) the squatter reportedly broke into the property - under the doctrine of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario I would have thought that breaking in contravened nec vi - no violence. (2) The squatter heard of the vacant house through an auctioneering firm where he worked - surely some sort of privilege or fiduciary duty must apply to an auctioneering firm, who are subject to a licensing regime. It seems fundamentally wrong that he would profit from information he came to have in a capacity like that.

Just my two cents - I'm interested in the law on AP having done a thesis on it.

The far more interesting aspect of the case, to me at any rate, is the absolute confirmation that 'State Agencies' is still to be very strictly and narrowly interpreted per the Statute of Limitations for calculating limitation periods. It is now almost routine for local authorities to lose their properties to adverse possession, because the twelve-year limitation period applies - they are not the State. However, I wonder if an argument of some sort could be developed based on the supremacy of EU law which casts the net very widely in relation to direct effect, per cases like Marshall and Foster. No-one would argue that a local authority wouldn't be within the scope of direct effect under EU law as an emanation of state, so why can't they have the corrollary benefit from that in a case under the '57 Act?

JC

I know it didn't break any real ground on the area but does it hint at a question coming up? Also as another poster said being able to put it in an answer and quote it might give an extra mark for having yourself up to date with the judgements and actually looking outside the manuals :P. Also your arguments could be raised above and you could outline how maybe the courts have went in a lenient direction as to AP.

chops018

JCJCJC wrote: »

Lyall, Wylie and Pearse & Mee at least have good chapters on it, and it's worth googling. In addition to what has been said, I would make a few points in an answer -
1) Under common law, TT was objects made predominantly of gold or silver - 51% minimum per Denning in Overend Farms c. 1952. Under the Irish statute law, any material is now covered - wood, stone, glass, paper. leather etc. Public policy shifted from swelling the King's war coffers to protecting historical heritage. Mention this if the found object is brass or bronze in particular.
2) the SC in Webb hinted that legislation was required, hint was taken.
3) Webb is hugely important - several issues. Survival (or not) of Crown prerogative, Legitimate expectation as has been mentioned, and ownership of buried objects. The case comes up in constitutional law and in equity as well. Also important because it was practically the only case.
4) mention the old doctrine of cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelam ut usque ad inferos - whoever owns the land owns up to the heavens and all the way down to hell - buried objects tend to run with the land. Bernstien v Skyview blew a hole in that, the doctrine had to yield to modern times, a landowner can't prohibit aircraft from flying overhead. There was a case about a construction crane overflying a building in its arc, can't remember it just now, but the judge put a stay on his order for the expected duration of the construction project, neat answer.

It's a very easy area, anyone should do it I think.

JC

Edit: Crane case: Woolerton and Wilson Ltd v. Richard Costain Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 411 found here at page 8, worth a glance at least.

I knew I forgot to mention something in my post, point 4 will be taken into account by myself, up to the heavens and down to the hells. Thanks JC, will be taking note of that info as I agree with you Treasure Trove and finding objects in or on land is a relatively easy area that should definitively be prepared by someone doing property.

randomuser77

JCJCJC wrote: »

The adverse possession aspect of that case was relatively straightforward and unremarkable, it doesn't break any new ground. What i thought was perhaps query-able was, (1) the squatter reportedly broke into the property - under the doctrine of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario I would have thought that breaking in contravened nec vi - no violence.
JC

Interesting points. Quick question though, doesn't nec vi, nec clam, nec precario only apply to acquisition of easements by prescription only and not to adverse possession? Without specifically researching the point, I had come across a sentence earlier in the day in an article that I was reading ((2011) 16(3) CPLJ 54 Article: A “Hopeless Jumble”: The Cursed Reform of Prescription : Peter Bland) that backs what I'm saying:

"So, for instance, if Mr White repeatedly locked his gate to prevent Mr Black from entering and Mr Black repeatedly broke the locks to enter, Mr Black’s enjoyment is by force and he cannot claim a right of way by prescription. By contrast, the squatter can rely on his forceful ouster of the paper owner as evidence of his animus possidendi in a claim for adverse possession."

Or am I missing something here?

JCJCJC

randomuser77 wrote: »

Interesting points. Quick question though, doesn't nec vi, nec clam, nec precario only apply to acquisition of easements by prescription only and not to adverse possession? Without specifically researching the point, I had come across a sentence earlier in the day in an article that I was reading ((2011) 16(3) CPLJ 54 Article: A “Hopeless Jumble”: The Cursed Reform of Prescription : Peter Bland) that backs what I'm saying:

"So, for instance, if Mr White repeatedly locked his gate to prevent Mr Black from entering and Mr Black repeatedly broke the locks to enter, Mr Black’s enjoyment is by force and he cannot claim a right of way by prescription. By contrast, the squatter can rely on his forceful ouster of the paper owner as evidence of his animus possidendi in a claim for adverse possession."

Or am I missing something here?

For obvious reasons I can't take time out to research it, but as far as I know, nec vi applies to AP too - I certainly heard it argued in a case in the circuit court about four years ago. Bland is a great writer, I'll check out that article. His book on easements is excellent and a very enjoyable read if you like 'bog law', but it probably needs revision in light of the new Act.

tks

JC