FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Caoileann

So after much debate I have decided to give Constitutional a go on Thursday! This is the extent of what I will have time to cover:

Separation of Powers
Art 38.1
Property and Livelihood
Good name and Fair Procedures
Family and Education
Equality
President and AG
Freedom of Expression

and two random topics I'm hoping to throw in: Locus Standi and Proportionality.

Am I completely mad?! Haven't even had a chance to look at the papers..

Hogzy

Caoileann wrote: »

So after much debate I have decided to give Constitutional a go on Thursday! This is the extent of what I will have time to cover:

Separation of Powers
Art 38.1
Property and Livelihood
Good name and Fair Procedures
Family and Education
Equality
President and AG
Freedom of Expression

and two random topics I'm hoping to throw in: Locus Standi and Proportionality.

Am I completely mad?! Haven't even had a chance to look at the papers..

You shouldnt be hoping to throw in Proportionality or Locus Standi. If you dont cover these there isnt much point going in to be honest. The come up every year without fail. I would also do the Unenumerated Rights.

Caoileann

Hogzy wrote: »

You shouldnt be hoping to throw in Proportionality or Locus Standi. If you dont cover these there isnt much point going in to be honest. The come up every year without fail. I would also do the Unenumerated Rights.

Thanks doing that now! Went through all my notes and cut them down today but will be drilling most of this in after equity

I have the city colleges manual, quite concerned about cutting the chapters on the courts and the oireachtas but no point in codding myself I won't have time

itsonlybla

Caoileann wrote: »

Hogzy wrote: »

You shouldnt be hoping to throw in Proportionality or Locus Standi. If you dont cover these there isnt much point going in to be honest. The come up every year without fail. I would also do the Unenumerated Rights.

Thanks doing that now! Went through all my notes and cut them down today but will be drilling most of this in after equity

I have the city colleges manual, quite concerned about cutting the chapters on the courts and the oireachtas but no point in codding myself I won't have time

FOE has been bundled with Religion more than once in the past.

Caoileann

itsonlybla wrote: »

FOE has been bundled with Religion more than once in the past.

That's short will throw it in also. My nerves!

Ashy22

chops018 wrote: »

How is everyone set for criminal tomorrow?

I seem to have a good knowledge of the main areas, it's the niche areas like false imprisonment and the like that seem to escape my memory. I also seem to find it hard to remember the cases for the offences too.

Hoping it's not a paper on niche areas and the essays are nice. Would love a Melling essay and wouldn't mind one on actus reus (omissions) and/or mens rea (intention or recklessness).

I've covered nearly everything but it's hard to try remember it all, hoping it comes back to me when I read the question and see the issue.

Anyone want to put up a list of topics they feel will come up ?

evercloserunion

It's still permissible to bring in the legislation on the morning of the exam, right?

userlady

I think you can bring in legislation on day of exam but I overheard a lady saying to a student that she might not get it at the very start of the exam because they could be busy processing all others.

walrusgumble

Red Stripe wrote: »

brian__foley wrote: »

Just had a look at the exam there, and it seems to be (size aside) one of the more straight-forward contract exams in a long time. Equally, leaving "prediction" aside some key tips paid off. Notably:-

1. Know the examiner. She wrote the LRC report on privity and the privity reform essay was right there.

2. Know the past-papers especially the last paper. The essay on exclusion clauses was word for word the essay the examiner previously set.

3. Never discount the academic angles. The issue with equity and common mistake has been long overdue. Its the only interesting thing on mistake, and here is a new examiner, with keen academic interests examining just that issue.

Overall I thought it was a paper that would really, really have rewarded work and "fe1 style" thinking for that exam (in particular the express requirement to consider not contractual causes of action and rescissionary consequences of "misrepresentation".

It looked like a good paper and, more the point, a paper which we'd been pretty much directly prepping for in its angles and issues.

With respect, I think this offering is a little self-serving.
Worth keeping in mind I think that not all have the time/financial means to avail of 'direct prepping' for angles and issues.

Seriously, you are studying law , why? Examine wants good answers he could not care less about your personal life. ( many people did the extra study beyond the prep books while holding down full time jobs, it is hard but better off a least trying)

Foley has made some valid points. I would pay heed to them. The academic issues.Foley is referring to concern essays a opposed to the problem questions.

Not prepared to do the work, don't bother doing the exams. The law reports (all free and accessible on the net) are valuable source of information, especially the consultation papers, almost as good as the various textbooks to get a grip on what the law in a particular area is.

Foley spelt it out for you, each examiner has their own favourite issues, contract I seems to be provity. In eu law if I recall travers is keen on equality as he was involved in a case or two. That 5 % may b the difference between getting the bare 50 per cent despite only doing 3 1/2 full questions properly.

Try not to freak out about the results. you maybe ok.

Fe1exams

walrusgumble wrote: »

Seriously, you are studying law , why? Examine wants good answers he could not care less about your personal life. ( many people did the extra study beyond the prep books while holding down full time jobs, it is hard but better off a least trying)

Foley has made some valid points. I would pay heed to them. The academic issues.Foley is referring to concern essays a opposed to the problem questions.

Not prepared to do the work, don't bother doing the exams. The law reports (all free and accessible on the net) are valuable source of information, especially the consultation papers, almost as good as the various textbooks to get a grip on what the law in a particular area is.

Foley spelt it out for you, each examiner has their own favourite issues, contract I seems to be provity. In eu law if I recall travers is keen on equality as he was involved in a case or two. That 5 % may b the difference between getting the bare 50 per cent despite only doing 3 1/2 full questions properly.

Try not to freak out about the results. you maybe ok.

get some sleep u nut job - but i agree this is not a basket weaving course this is law! grow a p[air will u

chops018

Wasn't too bad. Might have scraped a pass, forgot some cases for a couple of issues but thought I did well using the legislation so hopefully it will be enough.

Essays were on Recklessness, the Special Criminal Court, and the Lawful Use of Force (concentrating on ss 18-20 of the 1997 act and when force is considered legitimate). The problems were fairly straightforward in that there was only really 2 or 3 issues and a defence. Featured the biggies such as murder, manslaughter, sexual assault, criminal damage, burglary (I think), assault; then some of the lesser areas were harassment, common design, unlawful use of a computer; the some of the defences to the problems (again what I thought) insanity - diminished responsibilty, insane automatism, intoxication, provocation, impossibility.

Hoping I did enough to pass, forgot the actual wording of some of the offences but I was right with the elements and their discussion. Fell short on a part of a question with cases but I tried to use the legislation to my advantage.

Caoileann

I am covering:

Injunctions: Quia Timet, Mareva, Anton Pillar, Interlocutory, Mandatory.
Specific Performance
Rescission and Undue Influence
Proprietary Estoppel*
Express Trusts
Secret Trusts
Charitable and cy pres
Resulting Trusts
Trustees
Tracing
Satisfaction
Maxims
Rectification

Leaving out: Purpose Trusts and non charitable Purpose Trusts, Constructive Trusts, Bayer and promissory estoppel.

Does this look safe enough?

rickety cricket

Caoileann wrote: »

I am covering:

Injunctions: Quia Timet, Mareva, Anton Pillar, Interlocutory, Mandatory.
Specific Performance
Rescission and Undue Influence
Proprietary Estoppel*
Express Trusts
Secret Trusts
Charitable and cy pres
Resulting Trusts
Trustees
Tracing
Satisfaction
Maxims
Rectification

Leaving out: Purpose Trusts and non charitable Purpose Trusts, Constructive Trusts, Bayer and promissory estoppel.

Does this look safe enough?

I'd say you are well covered with those considering you've done most of the course! I'm leaving out satisfaction & tracing but doing purpose trusts and won't be at risk of not getting my 5. gonna leave out mareva injunctions too because the same injunction has not been asked in consecutive papers at least since '04 so it seems safe to guess it won't be asked.

Strawberry Fields

rickety cricket wrote: »

I'd say you are well covered with those considering you've done most of the course! I'm leaving out satisfaction & tracing but doing purpose trusts and won't be at risk of not getting my 5. gonna leave out mareva injunctions too because the same injunction has not been asked in consecutive papers at least since '04 so it seems safe to guess it won't be asked.

Same as above but leaving out purpose trusts as it came up last time and doesn't seem to be on consecutive papers.

noseriously

I actually thought the Criminal Paper was a bit horrible - the questions weren't too bad but it was a bit weird to have nothing on Mellingor the rights of the accused. Not sure I would've done a better paper even if they had come up but i'd say a lot of people were banking on one or the other. I got 5 qs mostly done, but forgot most of the actual authority so doubt I passed. Absolutely screwed for EU tmrw as well - I always swear I wont leave my study to the last minute but I always do...

tm48

Hi guys just wondering if someone would clarify how eu mar 12 q 2a should have been answered? Dont have the exam report. Thanks

sorchauna

noseriously wrote: »

I actually thought the Criminal Paper was a bit horrible - the questions weren't too bad but it was a bit weird to have nothing on Mellingor the rights of the accused. Not sure I would've done a better paper even if they had come up but i'd say a lot of people were banking on one or the other. I got 5 qs mostly done, but forgot most of the actual authority so doubt I passed. Absolutely screwed for EU tmrw as well - I always swear I wont leave my study to the last minute but I always do...

I agree on the criminal I could do the 5 but I kept looking at the paper thinking am I missing rights of the accussed!! Out of my 4 this time it was my worst paper and be surprised if I passed. Not one of my questions I could say were great but it was my last exam this round so softens the blow. Stange enough paper indeed.

odonohs2

Do questions on presumed resulting trusts always come up in the context of transfers to joint bank accounts? It did in Oct 07, Apr 10 and Oct 10, does anyone know about previous and subsequent papers?

rickety cricket

odonohs2 wrote: »

Do questions on presumed resulting trusts always come up in the context of transfers to joint bank accounts? It did in Oct 07, Apr 10 and Oct 10, does anyone know about previous and subsequent papers?

the question in Mar 05 was a general essay on when presumed reulting trusts arising; and Oct 04 was Joint account problem q.

chops018

So there's a day and a half left for equity and this is what City Colleges are saying to focus on in the night before notes incase anyone didn't get them today (fair play to them for handing out night before notes to everyone after each exam):

"Nine Topics For Careful Revision:

- Injunctions, particularly interlocutory and mandatory injunctions.
- Specific Performance.
- Rectification.
- Undue Influence.
- Resulting Trusts: Re Osaba/Andrews and Joint Accounts (O'Meara .v. Bank of Scotland PLC, 2011, Laffoy J.)
- Secret Trusts.
- Charitable Trusts.
- Strong .v. Baird.
- Trusteeship."

I have all that covered already (some better than others), but I tried to cover most of the syllabus and only left out a few areas. May get cracking and try learn the stuff off now for Wednesday. It's been nearly 10 days since I've looked equity due to Criminal today and two subjects last week. I felt confident about it the last time I looked at my topics so let's hope the revision goes well over the next day and a half. I'll probably concentrate on the above and add in a couple of the other areas I've looked at myself such as the three certainties, and maybe constructive trusts.

EDIT: Found it online if anyone is interested. Well worth a look as it has notes on a lot of new cases particularly Undue Influence - Ulster Bank .v. Roche (2012) - contains 5 page discussion (could be the actual judgement I only gave it a quick glance), seems to discuss Ulster Bank .v. Fitzgerald, I'm assuming it's for when banks are put on inquiry in a case of a wife guaranteeing a husbands debts.

http://www.citycolleges.ie/wp/wp-content/uploads/FE1-EQUITY.pdf

Strawberry Fields

Cheers for that info Chops.

rickety cricket

Cheers chops

Maurice Levy

Hi, hope the exams are going well. I have a question about specific performance. If there was a question on sp for personal services, would you include the Argyll Stores and Wanze Properties decisions? Thanks

Hogzy

Maurice Levy wrote: »

Hi, hope the exams are going well. I have a question about specific performance. If there was a question on sp for personal services, would you include the Argyll Stores and Wanze Properties decisions? Thanks

Well depending on the direction of the question you could talk about them in context of contracts requiring supervision and how the courts are reluctant to enforce them.
But like I said, it depends on the question.

Maurice Levy

Thanks

JLex

Hi, I am looking for Equity questions from October 2011, i did the Griffith course last March, but their manual did not include the questions from Oct 2011. I would be very greatful, if someone could post or PM the actual questions.

Very stressed now before the exam

Thanks in advance and best of luck with studying.

noseriously

It's only necessary to state the new Treaty numbering in EU, right? I know there's a table of conversion anyway in the consolidate legislation, but I don't want to waste time looking that up unless I absolutely have to!

Lawls

tm48 wrote: »

Hi guys just wondering if someone would clarify how eu mar 12 q 2a should have been answered? Dont have the exam report. Thanks

He was just looking for an essay discussing the major developments brought about by the treaties mentioned in the question. From his report I don't think many people answered it!

KoukiKeith

Hey everyone!

First time posting on boards. I'm looking to sit my first four FE1s this coming March: EU, Tort, Criminal & Company. I'm working as a legal researcher at the moment (more or less full time) so am a little concerned about study loads. Typically, what kind of time frame do people give themselves for study? I'm a legal graduate so not starting from scratch and have a masters in European law so am somewhat at an advantage there.

Also, preparatory courses - Are they really necessary or would buying past manuals/exam papers/notes suffice?

Any input would be appreciated & good luck to those sitting the final three exams this week!

Keith

JCJCJC

KoukiKeith wrote: »

Hey everyone!

First time posting on boards. I'm looking to sit my first four FE1s this coming March: EU, Tort, Criminal & Company. I'm working as a legal researcher at the moment (more or less full time) so am a little concerned about study loads. Typically, what kind of time frame do people give themselves for study? I'm a legal graduate so not starting from scratch and have a masters in European law so am somewhat at an advantage there.

Also, preparatory courses - Are they really necessary or would buying past manuals/exam papers/notes suffice?

Any input would be appreciated & good luck to those sitting the final three exams this week!

Keith

This isn't a good week for a general question since most people here are in the middle of the FE1s and are a bit harried. I'll give you my two cents - I was a regular waffler here until I finally hit the 8-ball last March.
There isn't a general mathematically-perfect answer to your question. How many years is it since your first year undergrad subjects? If it's four or five, you'll be quite out-of-date, and with your LLM I'm guessing it might be that long. I did a LLB 2003-7 and started the FE1s in 2010, and I found a sharp change in style is required, in terms both of how and what you study, and how you tackle exam questions. In college we were encouraged to take a dusty academic approach and thrash through old 19th-century cases etc - Lord Wilberforce et al. The FE1 examiners don't give a rat's ass about that kind of thing - fresh, fresh, fresh law is what they want and problem fact patterns and case law questions are often based on very recent cases. I would recommend the GCD oneday intensive revision courses at least - I'm an unapologetic fan of GCD, having benefited hugely from studying there. I did seven one-day revisions, and the online full course on EU. If your knowledge of EU law is pre-Lisbon you need help to come up to speed, unless you have a really strong interest and aptitude for it.
To give you an example - I did criminal law in college in 2003 - never opened a book on it until this time last year when I did the one-day in GCD, just to get a structure on how to tackle the March exam. I did EXACTLY what the GCD guy advised and passed sweetly - ie one day in a classroom after nine years away from it - tuition and advice gets no better than that imho.
Enough personal rants - get some past exam papers, not too old - see if you can get five good answers handwritten in three hours, then get GCD sample answers and see if you are up to standard.
People with no formal law quals have passed the FE1s and still do routinely, so have a go anyway, stay active on this board to keep yourself briefed and to share info with fellow-sufferers, and ... don't ever, ever diss Dr. Brian Foley. He's the man.