FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

sorchauna

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

It depends - I just sat my four and was working full time as a legal secetary. I was also concerened with the work load and the fact that the place I was in was unable to give me any time off just the days off exam. Luckily I was able to go part time. Also doing this without the courses so this board will be your best friend then. But loads of people do them full time and loads have kids and families so it is doable.

The main thing is the first sitting as you need to get the magic 3/4 so pick your topics wisely. After that you can pick how many you want to do at a time. Loads of posts on what people think are the eastest. But pick what your more comfortable with. i had a masters in commerical and company law so company was a subject I picked...you get the idea.

The last few weeks are the main focus. It depends on how flexible work can be. You manage to get a month off, the two weeks before exams and two weeks off exams it will take the pressure off. You can go about doing your notes in the meantime, get familiar with the manaual, sample answers, grids and have a plan for those weeks what you will learn.

Looking at this years time table, you'd have space between them which is good. But if your stuck on time might pick ones closer together. I did exams wed,thurs, friday and today so as get back into the office this week so does depends on your flexbilty.

But these exams are doable (now I have yet to know if I have passed so take my advice with a pinch of salt And regard what JCJCJC said above as the very very sound advice it is!) but main thing is to do the work as you go along. I did my notes during the summer and know what I wanted to do topic wise within a subject. So for the weeks leading up Im just learning straight off. It did ease the pressure abit.

Also depends on if you can afford courses or not. I didnt, so I cannot say if there are worth it but the courses are there for a reason and I dont think I have ever come across a person who as said I did the course in such a college and I did not benefit it.

KoukiKeith

JCJCJC wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the reply, JCJCJC. I had a feeling that replies might be few and far between given the time of year but everyone loves a bit of exam procrastination don't they?!

I finished my undergrad in 2011 so I suppose it's four years since I've seen some of the subjects alright. Were you involved with Law in the intervening period, do you mind me asking? I might check out some of the one day courses. I wonder do GCC offer them? I know they offer the full prep courses but they're a wee bit rich for my blood, unfortunately.

sorchauna wrote: »

It depends - I just sat my four and was working full time as a legal secetary. I was also concerened with the work load and the fact that the place I was in was unable to give me any time off just the days off exam. Luckily I was able to go part time. Also doing this without the courses so this board will be your best friend then. But loads of people do them full time and loads have kids and families so it is doable.

The main thing is the first sitting as you need to get the magic 3/4 so pick your topics wisely. After that you can pick how many you want to do at a time. Loads of posts on what people think are the eastest. But pick what your more comfortable with. i had a masters in commerical and company law so company was a subject I picked...you get the idea.

The last few weeks are the main focus. It depends on how flexible work can be. You manage to get a month off, the two weeks before exams and two weeks off exams it will take the pressure off. You can go about doing your notes in the meantime, get familiar with the manaual, sample answers, grids and have a plan for those weeks what you will learn.

Looking at this years time table, you'd have space between them which is good. But if your stuck on time might pick ones closer together. I did exams wed,thurs, friday and today so as get back into the office this week so does depends on your flexbilty.

But these exams are doable (now I have yet to know if I have passed so take my advice with a pinch of salt and And regard what JCJCJC said above as the very very sound advice it is!) but mean thing is to do the work as you go along. I did my notes during the summer and know what I wanted to do topic wise within a subject. So for the weeks leading up Im just learning straight off. It did ease the pressure abit.

Also depends on if you can afford courses or not. I didnt, so I cannot say if there are worth it but the courses are there for a reason and I dont think I have ever come across a person who as said I did the course in such a college and I did not benefit it.

Congrats on sitting the first four, sorchauna! You found it manageable enough so with the full time work?

Does the timetable usually stay the same? Ideally, I'd love some time in between for some last-minute cramming. I guess I should really be starting asap so as not to increase the pressure! I get on quite well with my boss so am hoping to take the last half of Feb and all of March off for study.

I'm in the same boat as yourself regards the price of the courses. I just can't justify it. I might look into the day course .... If anything, it might help to jog the memory!

sorchauna

KoukiKeith wrote: »

Congrats on sitting the first four, sorchauna! You found it manageable enough so with the full time work?

Does the timetable usually stay the same? Ideally, I'd love some time in between for some last-minute cramming. I guess I should really be starting asap so as not to increase the pressure! I get on quite well with my boss so am hoping to take the last half of Feb and all of March off for study.

I'm in the same boat as yourself regards the price of the courses. I just can't justify it. I might look into the day course .... If anything, it might help to jog the memory!

Thanks! I did move to a part time job so was working part time but to be honest I was have driven mad because then all you have really is the study and you are more likely to spend the time you have actually studying if your stuck for time. Also move wasnt just because if the fe's but rather just a much better place and chance of the that traineeship so it went that way.

The main thing is get the manual, the grids and sample answers. As JCJCJC said you still are a few years since you did it. I did criminal today last time I said my criminal exam was in 1st year in 2007 and found it tougher cause its so far away. I do think working in the legal sphere they are easier to give you time off, they know what its like. You may just have to use your own personal holidays towards it. Day course are usually held in about the 3rd week before you start the exams. Generally you should be already familar with the topics and they just tell you how to pharse them.

I just complied all the information into my notes. You see as you read questions and sample answers how the question would be pharsed. Only think is time is tigher, its 3hrs for 4 questions. Most undergrad's are 4 questions in three hours and problem questions can take time to read so if say you found yourself at undergrad stuck for time, then you may want to practise a bit on that.

But there will be better advice out there once this week is over. Since I finished today I was able to respond and as JCJCJC said he's done these already. Timetable generally does not but I think this year was a bit different from last year but I don't know for sure, someone who said exams last year may be able to help you out.

In a few weeks when results are out alot of manuals will go on sale so may be worth waiting around to check out. Manuals are great starting point but give you the basics. Worth keeping an eye out on recent cases and it does generally pop up here anyway so keep checking on this. I have gotten so much help off people here, I don't know how I would have managed without them.

JCJCJC

KoukiKeith wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, JCJCJC. I had a feeling that replies might be few and far between given the time of year but everyone loves a bit of exam procrastination don't they?!

I finished my undergrad in 2011 so I suppose it's four years since I've seen some of the subjects alright. Were you involved with Law in the intervening period, do you mind me asking? I might check out some of the one day courses. I wonder do GCC offer them? I know they offer the full prep courses but they're a wee bit rich for my blood, unfortunately.

Yes, I've been somewhat immersed in legal work but not FE1-relevant, and you will soon discover that anything not FE1-relevant is about as useful as the horoscope in the Daily Mail. I did a lot of planning & environmental law, employment law, construction law, local government law and some family law - I was even in the Supreme Court for a big divorce case - G v G, and have been in the High Court and Circuit Court a fair bit. If you graduated in 2011 and knocked out a LLM since you should be more than sharp enough, just study past papers to see the shift in style that's required. It's not academic law - it's the final entrance exam to training for the solicitor's profession, so the examiner is expecting you to be at or very near the type of knowledge level a good sharp no-bull**** practising solicitor should and could be expected to have. It's a test of your analytical skills, knowledge of case-law, statute law, some authoritative legal writing and your ability to convey it concisely in good legal english.
Yes, GCD do offer the one-day intensive revision courses, they are on their website. They are timed to give you a chance to study the material before the exam. If I might suggest a strategy, it would be like this:

1)Pick your four subjects - based on what you are best at and what ones sit comfortably together, ie contract, tort and equity, and maybe based on the exam schedule if you get fatigued by exams.
2)Get the lawsoc syllabus for each subject and at all costs confine yourself to the syllabus - eg in criminal law in Spring 2012, there was a problem q about a guy with a gun - the Firearms Act isn't examinable so stay out of it, do only the assault aspect, the NFOAP is all you need to know
3)Examine past papers critically and make an honest assessment of how you'll do, deduct 25% and see if the result is still over 50 ;-)
4) Read the examiners' reports and the paper they refer to simultaneously, that is your only channel of communication with the examiners so don't ignore it. If the Examiner says 'the better answers displayed a knowledge of Donoghue v Stephenson' be sure to mention it if a question on that topic comes up for you, you'd be an eejit no to and the examiner will be irritated.
5) Play the man as much as the ball - know your examiner's interests, GCD always say that and they are right. Prof Clarke published a paper on damages in contract - and asked a FE1 question - discuss the heads of damages for breach of contract - I gave him his own paper back and nothing else, passed easily. Dr. Eoin Carolan gives a public lecture on recent case-law developments in Constitutional every year - it's beneficial to attend, believe me.
6) Make out a study time-table - if you don't know how, get help - it is vitally important. From about twelve weeks out, you need a structure on how your time is to be used and divided.
7) I recommend deliberately studying memory methods and techniques early on - Tony Buzan's books are great for that, and I found hypnosis to be brilliant, I can give you a reference to a good person if you wish. You might find that your note-taking style will change - diagrams rather than blocks of plain text. I can effortlessly explain complex cases like DCC v Fyffes, Vandervell's Trusts etc because I have flow-charted them in cartoon sketches rather than just reading. I recorded my own notes on a dictaphone and listened to them in the car to make productive use of time in traffic and travelling - it's a great way to run the stuff past your mind again, swears and all, especially on the morning of the exams, I had a three-hour fast drive to the Bo Dearg.
8) Be strategic in your marking of EU treaties, Companies Acts etc. Colour-code each topic, eg Green for the European Parliament. Highlight the contents page as much as the articles and use it to make sure you have mentioned everything that is relevant. Get accustomed to using your treaty and acts at home so that they will be familiar on the day.
9) Give yourself a good shot of Red Bull / Coca-cola / Mars Bars etc before you go in - the caffeine and sugar boost is a big help in the morning. Note I didn't say Coke, in case I'd be mis-construed, lots of lawyers lurking here ;-)

RandolphEsq

chops018 wrote: »

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

Secret Trusts? Ugh, so irrelevant. I haven't bothered even doing notes on them.

E.U. is going to to destroy me tomorrow

chops018

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Secret Trusts? Ugh, so irrelevant. I haven't bothered even doing notes on them.

E.U. is going to to destroy me tomorrow

Yeah but it isn't long to do and isn't too bad to learn. I already have it done so a quick read over a couple of times should do the trick. Good luck with EU tomorrow.

userlady

How did everyone find EU? I had trouble with my 4th and 5th questions. With regards the free movement problem question on the the undertakings not being able to play the matches on their screens?? REALLY hoping that was services/establishment and not fmg?? It seemed like it could be either but I went with servies and estab.
Also with regards to the question on principles what did people say re non discrimination? Would it have been correct to have talked about citizenship and non discrim on grounds of nationality or was he looking for something else?

Hogzy

Very quick question, Im in the car on the way to dublin so i cant look at notes.

Was the contract rectified in Irish Life Assurance v Dublin Land Securities? I know a common intention was never formed and neither party was aware of the other party's mistake. My head is telling me that it wasnt rectified because defendant needs to be aware of the mistake in order to sue for rectification involving unilateral mistake.

Is that right?

Strawberry Fields

Hogzy wrote: »

Very quick question, Im in the car on the way to dublin so i cant look at notes.

Was the contract rectified in Irish Life Assurance v Dublin Land Securities? I know a common intention was never formed and neither party was aware of the other party's mistake. My head is telling me that it wasnt rectified because defendant needs to be aware of the mistake in order to sue for rectification involving unilateral mistake.

Is that right?

No under mutual mistake as there was two sets of rectification ie no common mistake.
No under unilateral mistake as there was no element of sharp practice ie the test in Thomas Bates v Wyndhams was not made out.

Hogzy

godeas16 wrote: »

No under mutual mistake as there was two sets of rectification ie no common mistake.
No under unilateral mistake as there was no element of sharp practice ie the test in Thomas Bates v Wyndhams was not made out.

Legend, Thanks a million

rickety cricket

Hogzy wrote: »

Very quick question, Im in the car on the way to dublin so i cant look at notes.

Was the contract rectified in Irish Life Assurance v Dublin Land Securities? I know a common intention was never formed and neither party was aware of the other party's mistake. My head is telling me that it wasnt rectified because defendant needs to be aware of the mistake in order to sue for rectification involving unilateral mistake.

Is that right?

Yeah it wasn't rectified as there was no knowledge of the mistake, and so it couldn't be said there was any unfair profiting from the mistake.

chops018

Hogzy wrote: »

Very quick question, Im in the car on the way to dublin so i cant look at notes.

Was the contract rectified in Irish Life Assurance v Dublin Land Securities? I know a common intention was never formed and neither party was aware of the other party's mistake. My head is telling me that it wasnt rectified because defendant needs to be aware of the mistake in order to sue for rectification involving unilateral mistake.

Is that right?

Yeah that was where the sharp practise test was applied - there has to be some element of fraud or sharp practise for rectification to apply. In essence where it would be inequitable in the circumstances to allow a person to retain a benefit from that mistake.

Make sure you look at city colleges night before notes, it has a couple of recent cases discussing the move away from the rigid application requiring an outward expression of accord. Munt .v. Beasley the court relied on sales particulars of a flat as sufficient for an outward expression of accord.

Strawberry Fields

I've been reading through the City notes under charitable trusts it states that
it would appear that a
body that is primarily charitable may use political means to achieve its charitable goals under s.2, as
recognised by Oonagh Breen

How does this affect mcgovern v ag the amnesty international case?
A lot of previous problem questions are on point here.

chops018

godeas16 wrote: »

I've been reading through the City notes under charitable trusts it states that
it would appear that a
body that is primarily charitable may use political means to achieve its charitable goals under s.2, as
recognised by Oonagh Breen

How does this affect mcgovern v ag the amnesty international case?
A lot of previous problem questions are on point here.

Under section 2 of the 2009 act it states that a political body is not charitable, and neither is a body that promotes a political cause, unless the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the charitable purposes of the body.

Oonagh Breen obviously felt in her article that this means that a body that is mainly charitable may use political means to achieve that purpose. I think that Amnesty's main objectives are political rather than charitable and it can be distinguished here, seeing as it is mainly political they would not allow it charitable status.

You could say that there has yet to be a decision on it here regarding the 2009 act, but Oonagh Breen feels the new act allows for it.

So my understanding of it would be that a body that promotes a political cause can receive charitable status under the 2009 act if it can be shown that the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the charitable purposes of the body, Oonagh Breen in her article feels that this may allow a body to use political purposes to obtain there objective. There has been no case law on it yet but one would assume that such objectives would need to be charitable for this to a successful charitable trust. So cases such as McGovern .v. AG may still be intact. Also the public benefit requirement would surely then have to be proved?

Obviously other political cases such as Bowman Secular Society are straightforward enough.

Strawberry Fields

Cheers chops good to know as she is the extern examiner.

chops018

godeas16 wrote: »

Cheers chops good to know as she is the extern examiner.

Yeah if it does come up just kind of talk about it in retrospect as there hasn't been a decision on that part of the 2009 act yet and just be like this is how Oonagh Breen feels about it etc. and this is what I think - agree/disagree. I old case law such as McGovern won't/will affect new decsions etc etc. Don't say anything definite as there has been nothing definite on it yet. All you can do is state what the act says look at old case law and look at commentary.

Strawberry Fields

chops018 wrote: »

Yeah if it does come up just kind of talk about it in retrospect as there hasn't been a decision on that part of the 2009 act yet and just be like this is how Oonagh Breen feels about it etc. and this is what I think - agree/disagree. I old case law such as McGovern won't/will affect new decsions etc etc. Don't say anything definite as there has been nothing definite on it yet. All you can do is state what the act says look at old case law and look at commentary.

Yeah will do the same with the poor relations trusts given the new act, really was thinking of a problem on is such and such a bequest a valid trust given how prevalent those type of questions have been in past papers.

evercloserunion

Well that was a bitch of an EU exam I found. Does anyone know if he's a decent marker?

chops018

godeas16 wrote: »

Yeah will do the same with the poor relations trusts given the new act, really was thinking of a problem on is such and such a bequest a valid trust given how prevalent those type of questions have been in past papers.

Yeah there usually is a pattern alright. I'll be the same regard poor relations too, will mention the development of the cases and then mention 2009 act. Realistically 2009 act isn't big and you can only state that section 3 brings in a strict personal nexus test removing poor relations and employees as being charitable.

I'd say the main focus would be a discussion on the public benefit requirement? How it's interpreted in the cases and then discuss section 3(7)(8).

RandolphEsq

evercloserunion wrote: »

Well that was a bitch of an EU exam I found. Does anyone know if he's a decent marker?

From reading his exam reports you would think he failed 99% of people but E.U. has the highest pass rate.

evercloserunion

RandolphEsq wrote: »

From reading his exam reports you would think he failed 99% of people but E.U. has the highest pass rate.

Something to hold on to I suppose, thanks!

Yeah, he does seem quite grumpy in those reports...

lilfeely

evercloserunion wrote: »

Well that was a bitch of an EU exam I found. Does anyone know if he's a decent marker?

It was an horrendous paper for me, thought I was well prepared but completely blanked in there. Please god I did enough to get a pass!

noseriously

Same here, actually had a minor freakout, forgot about 90% of the cases, most of my answers are just whatever is in the treaties and a whole lot of waffle!

itsonlybla

evercloserunion wrote: »

Something to hold on to I suppose, thanks!

Yeah, he does seem quite grumpy in those reports...

Ha from reading them I got the impression he was fairly testy alright!

I'd be too if I had to read all them EU scripts mind.

RandolphEsq

noseriously wrote: »

Same here, actually had a minor freakout, forgot about 90% of the cases, most of my answers are just whatever is in the treaties and a whole lot of waffle!

I too forgot a lot of the case names but I knew the legal points from them so I just said "case law shows that . . .". Try and make the examiner think that I know the cases but chose not to name them!

UberStressed

Losing the will to live..any body any tips for equity? Last exam and didn't focus on it as much as the others..what's the examiner like? Reports aren't as thorough as some of the other subjects...

chops018

UberStressed wrote: »

Losing the will to live..any body any tips for equity? Last exam and didn't focus on it as much as the others..what's the examiner like? Reports aren't as thorough as some of the other subjects...

City Colleges tips:

"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."

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

I'm really hoping no abstract/niche areas come up because I have the main topics covered well enough I think and the topics that are usually examinable i.e. duty to invest and UI and third parties, I seem to know well also, so please be a nice exam.

Caoileann

chops018 wrote: »

City Colleges tips:

I'm really hoping no abstract/niche areas come up because I have the main topics covered well enough I think and the topics that are usually examinable i.e. duty to invest and UI and third parties, I seem to know well also, so please be a nice exam.

Equity is a third time repeat for me... this better be a nice paper cannot face it again!

chops018

Caoileann wrote: »

Equity is a third time repeat for me... this better be a nice paper cannot face it again!

Second time for me. I should have passed the last time only I fecked up two questions by rushing and misinterpreting them completely.

Strawberry Fields

chops018 wrote: »

Second time for me. I should have passed the last time only I fecked up two questions by rushing and misinterpreting them completely.

Second time for me but I feel much better prepared this time, fingers crossed for a nice paper.