FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

qz

Government Publications on Molesworth Street, off Dawson St.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/a-misc/publications.htm

JCJCJC

Maurice Levy wrote: »

I have made a mistake by not reading some of the information that the Law Society has sent me until today.
First, I thought that it was possible to check in legislation on the morning of the exam and second, I also thought that bringing in an older copy of legislation that has been used for the FE 1's was ok. My copy of the Companies act is 1963- 2006.
I have Company Law on Wednesday and I am in Donegal. I presume that I will have to go to Dublin early and purchase a new copy of the Companies acts on Tuesday and hand it in. Can anyone tell me where I could purchase one at such short notice?

They always write that down. It has always been the custom and practise to date that you can check in the materials on the morning, I've done it in Const, EU and Contract to date in Cork and Dublin - no problems, and there'll be a big pile of them, nearly everybody does it. You might get it handed to you a little quicker if they've had it since the day before, that's all.

Same goes for the Companies Acts - the edition you have will be fine. They don't always list the latest, or earlier editions.

I honestly think you can relax on this.

JC

Maurice Levy

Thanks a lot to the previous two posters!

Gibbonw2

Avatargh wrote: »

With all due respect, I don't understand how you "learn" the Heaney test save if you are simply referring to learning the statement adopted from Chaulk. I think you're missing the far, far wider points of (a) the difference in the tests from a separation of powers perspective and (b) the difference / in consistency in their application.

what I mean is that the application Of Heaney re , eg, Property rights appears more prevalent throughout case law. Unless It were a direct question re evolution of testing the validity of legislation, i cannot see many instances of Tuohy being applied. I accept my knowledge of the broad diaspora of caselaw is lacking, i am merely trying to get through the exam, but at this stage i would appreciate advice WHY and WHERE Tuohy is applied? I will 'learn' it and do some minor research as its almost judgement day but a general answer, as to its application in an 'fe1' perspective would be great!

Gibbonw2

Also, is there any regulations against highlighting articles in your constitution? As in can you 'colour code' to an extent. Ie for an AG or President question use orange and green highlight to their relevant articles ?

Hogzy

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

what I mean is that the application Of Heaney re , eg, Property rights appears more prevalent throughout case law. Unless It were a direct question re evolution of testing the validity of legislation, i cannot see many instances of Tuohy being applied. I accept my knowledge of the broad diaspora of caselaw is lacking, i am merely trying to get through the exam, but at this stage i would appreciate advice WHY and WHERE Tuohy is applied? I will 'learn' it and do some minor research as its almost judgement day but a general answer, as to its application in an 'fe1' perspective would be great!

Both tests are applied purely subjectively, There is no 'better test'. Basically it depends what side of the bed the judge got out of that morning.

Tuohy - Is the restriction totally contrary to reasonableness and fairness can almost be described as a Pro Legislation approach. The legislation has to reach a high standard of awfulness before the court will deem it disporportionate.

Heaney - To sum up - Could the legislation have restricted your rights in a lessor manor to achieve the same goal. This can be described as a pro Applicant approach as all the applicant must show is that there was a less restrictive way for the legislation to achieve the goal the Oireachtas aimed to achieve.

In Murphy v IRTC - High Court upheld the legislation saying there was no less restrictive way to prevent offensive advertising. On Appeal the Supreme Court went to Tuohy route and said there was a less restrictive way to prevent religious advertising however the approach the IRTC took was not contrary to reasonableness and fairness so upheld the legislation.

Murphy is a good case because it demonstrates how the courts can use both Proportionality tests to basically come to the same conclusion.

BTW - The Brian Foley Article on Proportionality is fantastic. Its online somewhere. Try google.

JCJCJC

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

Also, is there any regulations against highlighting articles in your constitution? As in can you 'colour code' to an extent. Ie for an AG or President question use orange and green highlight to their relevant articles ?

There are no regulations on that - you should see mine, colour-coordinated tabs and highlighters. Tesco is a great place to get the materials. It's also helpful to highlight the tables of contents and even the index at the back with one colour per topic, in case you forget something. For example, in the EU Treaties, the articles on the Council are all over the place in two treaties. You need some system to capture them all unless you have a brain like Rain Man, because you'll be flying through the book in the exam.
I also find it handy to highlight blocks on the right-hand edge of the pages so that I can pick out something like the EU treaties or the '63 Companies Act quickly from a big thick book.

doing

In Contract, I don't really understand where the line between factual/actual undue unfluence, and presumed undue influence is.

Why would O'flanagan v Ray-Ger ltd fall under factual/actual undue influence, and Hammond v Osbourne fall under presumed undue influence (once a relationship of physical/emtional reliance is demonstrated)?

The criteria for both of them, as per Glover v Glover and Greg v Kidd respectively, seem to be the same. Manifestly inadequate consideration and a big gulf or reliance in social/physical/emotional wellbeing?

Is it the case that whenever it's a business partnership it falls under factual undue influence and everything else presumed?

EG if there's a case where a terminally ill man is taken advantage of by, say, a car dealer, and pestered and cajoled until he agreed to buy a car for ten times it's value, would that fall under factual/actual undue influence because of the gulf in their physical/mental wellbeing (Glover v Glover), or would the presumption of undue influence be raised by the gulf in their physical/mental wellbeing (Gregg v Kidd)?

LSH

JCJCJC wrote: »

You're my new bf




The opposite! I've gone in steps from 36 to 185! rising number every time, so I'm not sure what that means. Last time we tried to get a rough idea here on how many were sitting, people chipped in an indication of their numbers, some were up in the 800's. Anybody like to say what their number is, if it's a lot higher than (say) 500?

506 surname L, I was 509 last year

noseriously

Hey, this is my second time sitting my first four, just wondering if anyone who's been in my situation knows whether it's ok to re-submit the same legislation, just scribbling out the old number and writing the new? Or will they think I'm attempting some kind of code? I know I sound paranoid but I've heard the Law Society can be right gits about stuff like this!

LSH

noseriously wrote: »

Hey, this is my second time sitting my first four, just wondering if anyone who's been in my situation knows whether it's ok to re-submit the same legislation, just scribbling out the old number and writing the new? Or will they think I'm attempting some kind of code? I know I sound paranoid but I've heard the Law Society can be right gits about stuff like this!

Hey
I am resitting as well and I am using same legislation, I just tippexed out old number. I Shouldnt think they would have a problem with doing that?! Although it is the law society so you never know!!!!
Best of luck this time around.

JCJCJC

noseriously wrote: »

Hey, this is my second time sitting my first four, just wondering if anyone who's been in my situation knows whether it's ok to re-submit the same legislation, just scribbling out the old number and writing the new? Or will they think I'm attempting some kind of code? I know I sound paranoid but I've heard the Law Society can be right gits about stuff like this!

Relax ffs, they're not that bad. Scribble it out or use a sticky label. How much secret code can you write in three digits anyway?

erinp

noseriously wrote: »

Hey, this is my second time sitting my first four, just wondering if anyone who's been in my situation knows whether it's ok to re-submit the same legislation, just scribbling out the old number and writing the new? Or will they think I'm attempting some kind of code? I know I sound paranoid but I've heard the Law Society can be right gits about stuff like this!

I bought my legislation second hand and literally just scribbled out the number on the morning of the exam and wrote my own next to it- no problem at all

boomtown84

noseriously wrote: »

Hey, this is my second time sitting my first four, just wondering if anyone who's been in my situation knows whether it's ok to re-submit the same legislation, just scribbling out the old number and writing the new? Or will they think I'm attempting some kind of code? I know I sound paranoid but I've heard the Law Society can be right gits about stuff like this!

You'll be grand. Word of warning though: they use a top code cracking team and UV lights to inspect all legislation so if you do try something sneaky you'll be done. Be careful out there.

JCJCJC

boomtown84 wrote: »

You'll be grand. Word of warning though: they use a top code cracking team and UV lights to inspect all legislation so if you do try something sneaky you'll be done. Be careful out there.

Yeah, noticed that. Microdots are the best - the third full stop on page 123 has the full text of Courtney's book on it ;-)

lolita60

Hey Guys can anyone give me the low down on topics for Contract & Property!!!! 2nd time doing the first 4 and starting to stress

Any help would be greatly appreciated...


PS Have grids (&some answers) if they are any help to people!!

noseriously

Thanks, think it's just the oul nerves starting to get me, wanted to make sure. Failed pretty spectacularly last time and feel like I've left everything to the last minute(again)!

Ned_led16

Is there a clear and distinct difference between R v F and Nuisance for the purpose of the fe1 examinations

NoQuarter

Yes. The test to be met for Rylands is specifically worded.
Specifically the "non natural" part. This is not relevant for nuisance. It is generally easy enough to distinguish between the two.

ananas

FOR ALL THOSE TRAVELLING ON LUAS: the red line is down due to a fire and only travelling between tallaght and blackhorse. Hopefully eill be up and running by tomorrow but check first.

GusherING

Though it's not a strict rule in nuisance, a nuisance that is a once off event will not be considered a nuisance by the courts too easily.

Events that happen under RvF, like a reservoir bursting and floooding everywhere is clearly a once off event. There is no need for it to be a recurring event at all.

qz

Best of luck to everyone doing Tort tomorrow.

birdie89

Hi guys - just a quick question on dellaway v nama -

I gather from the hc ruling that the right to fair procedures was held not to be a free standing rule and that a constitutional right would need to be breached first in order to see if fair procedures were then later breached...

But i saw another poster on boards quoted something from EC (the examiner) which said that last week he commented on dellaway and said that the SC had now said that fair procedures is a free standing right???!?!

Can someone PLEASE clarify! head is melted at this point!!!!

Mojo22

ananas wrote: »

FOR ALL THOSE TRAVELLING ON LUAS: the red line is down due to a fire and only travelling between tallaght and blackhorse. Hopefully eill be up and running by tomorrow but check first.

Thanks for that piece of info. Hopefully it will be back to normal 2moro. If not where can we a bus from???

DeSourire

Anyone have a decent outline/sketch on an essay question on incrementalism. I know it probably won't come up but i would like to have some idea all the same. BLA!

JCJCJC

DeSourire wrote: »

Anyone have a decent outline/sketch on an essay question on incrementalism. I know it probably won't come up but i would like to have some idea all the same. BLA!

I've never heard of it so I googled it - have a look at post No 2 on this thread, it was the first question ever asked here!

Good luck to all you tort-illas tomorrow ;-)

JC

moonbino

Mojo22 wrote: »

ananas wrote: »

FOR ALL THOSE TRAVELLING ON LUAS: the red line is down due to a fire and only travelling between tallaght and blackhorse. Hopefully eill be up and running by tomorrow but check first.

Thanks for that piece of info. Hopefully it will be back to normal 2moro. If not where can we a bus from???

catch the luas at heuston station i think the 90 or 91 can drop you there really not sure on the bus number. Or you can catch the luas at st james hospital. The 123 will take you there. Not sure but i heard the burnt building might not be stable enough so that is why the luas is not starting from connolly. If that is true then don't expect things to change tomorrow.

GOOD LUCK TO ALL OF YOU! GIVE IT YOUR ALL!!!!!!!!

Amre17

Anyone willing to give up val corbetts tips at this late stage.. Just curious now to see if I've picked similar topics... Please..

boomtown84

Mojo22

moonbino wrote: »

catch the luas at heuston station i think the 90 or 91 can drop you there really not sure on the bus number. Or you can catch the luas at st james hospital. The 123 will take you there. Not sure but i heard the burnt building might not be stable enough so that is why the luas is not starting from connolly. If that is true then don't expect things to change tomorrow.

GOOD LUCK TO ALL OF YOU! GIVE IT YOUR ALL!!!!!!!!

Thanks moonbino for that