FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

sofakingood

JCJCJC wrote: »

yes.

On my markers I have the article and topic it covers, eg Art 42-education.
Is this allowed?

Cheers in advance

JCJCJC

sofakingood wrote: »

On my markers I have the article and topic it covers, eg Art 42-education.
Is this allowed?

Cheers in advance

I think you're right on the limit, or probably over it. The sense of the rules is 'no words'. I wouldn't try what you're doing. Use the index and the contents - the constitution isn't that big.

sofakingood

JCJCJC wrote: »

I think you're right on the limit, or probably over it. The sense of the rules is 'no words'. I wouldn't try what you're doing. Use the index and the contents - the constitution isn't that big.

Thanks for your help.

doing

Has defamation come up a lot since the new act came into force in 2010?

leitrimjoe90

boomtown84 wrote: »

Hi, does anyone have sample answers to the last Constitutional paper? Oct 2012.

would love some sample answers to this paper? did any college even dare to produce them?

boomtown84

leitrimjoe90 wrote: »

would love some sample answers to this paper? did any college even dare to produce them?

I assume Griffith did.

Anyone out there got them? I'll buy you a pint after the exam!:)

KoukiKeith

doing wrote: »

Has defamation come up a lot since the new act came into force in 2010?

Since 2010 it has appeared 3 times. Every second year. It came up in October but then trends are there to be broken I suppose.

doing

KoukiKeith wrote: »

Since 2010 it has appeared 3 times. Every second year. It came up in October but then trends are there to be broken I suppose.

Thanks.

Well I don't think I can cover it properly with my out of date 2009 manual anyway. Pity.

valleyoftheunos

ShamblesB wrote: »

For equity I would say injunctions and charitable trusts, they seem to come up pretty much every year! Specific performance, estoppel, tracing and resulting trusts come up a bit too, I would definitely try cover these at least! And unfortunately I'm on the same boat as you with contract. Illegal and void contracts, capacity and privity seem to appear a lot as an essay question...

I remember that Maxims and Donatio Mortis Causa sometimes pop up as handy half questions in the Equity exam.

As for Contract you can't really leave a lot out becuase of the way they mix topics within questions. If you are really stuck though focus on the really importnat stuff they have to ask nearly every year,

Formation (offer and acceptance)

Vitiating factors (Mistake, Misrepresentation, Frustration)

And factors relating to enforcing (Capacity, Privity, Consideration)

I realise thats probably 60% of the course but they have to have large parts of it on the paper every year.

rickety cricket

Can anyway shed some light as to what was at issue in Q.4 of Constitution April 2007 (Mary is a garda subject to disciplinary hearings). Exam reports are not clear, and it states that judicial function is not an issue?

boomtown84

rickety cricket wrote: »

Can anyway shed some light as to what was at issue in Q.4 of Constitution April 2007 (Mary is a garda subject to disciplinary hearings). Exam reports are not clear, and it states that judicial function is not an issue?

Fair Procedures and Livelihood

rickety cricket

boomtown84 wrote: »

Fair Procedures and Livelihood

thank you, i was thinking the same just wanted to double check.

ShamblesB

Please could someone help me with this! - EU law April 2012 exam question 5 part (iv) am I correct in assuming that the farmer has no right to damages against Windy Ltd? I would really appreciate any advice! Thanks

Robbo

doing wrote: »

Has defamation come up a lot since the new act came into force in 2010?

Pretty frequently, the examiner seems to have a penchant for online defamation these days (as well being generally topical) so Norwich Pharmacal Orders, the eCommerce Directive (and "mere conduit" defence), Betfair, Rate Your Solicitor and anything further which slips my mind are all key.

Tom Young

That's the Hosting defence not mere conduit. Which is, in fact, an entirely different defence. See Mulvaney if you think I'm wrong.

Visit SI 68 of 2003 of 2000/31/EC.

Robbo

Tom Young wrote: »

That's the Hosting defence not mere conduit. Which is, in fact, an entirely different defence. See Mulvaney if you think I'm wrong.

Visit SI 68 of 2003 of 2000/31/EC.

My apologies, been a while since I've looked at the topic.

KoukiKeith

So does hosting apply or does that fall under the specific defamation defence of innocent dissemination? I have only read about the opposite i.e Godfrey where an ISP refuses to take down a defamatory statement, they will be liable.

KoukiKeith

Would anyone be willing to send me both of the 2012 EU papers, please? I'm sure I have something which I can send in return.

ShamblesB

KoukiKeith wrote: »

Would anyone be willing to send me both of the 2012 EU papers, please? I'm sure I have something which I can send in return.

Yes I can email you pdf if you could assist me with a problem on one of the papers. Its on April 2012 so I will have to wait until I send it so you can have a look at it

Glinda!

Anyone have March & Oct 2012 contract sample answers for sale or swap?

Caoileann

I am covering:

1. Succession
2. Adverse Possession
3. Licences and Proprietary Estoppel
4. Easements
5. Family Property
6. Finding
7. Co-ownership
8. Estates
9. Landlord and Tenant

If I add anything else it will probably be the influence of equity or mortgages but this depends on time!

Would I be covered with this list? Any suggestions on what I maybe should add?

doing

Caoileann wrote: »

I am covering:

1. Succession
2. Adverse Possession
3. Licences and Proprietary Estoppel
4. Easements
5. Family Property
6. Finding
7. Co-ownership
8. Estates
9. Landlord and Tenant

If I add anything else it will probably be the influence of equity or mortgages but this depends on time!

Would I be covered with this list? Any suggestions on what I maybe should add?

Easily. Succession is two single topic questions every year, licenses and proprietary estoppel, adverse possession and co ownership are single topic questions every single year too. If you did them alone you'd be unlucky not to get 5 questions.

Treasure trove is always worth a shot, it's only a few pages and comes up a lot. Equity goes well with proprietary estoppel.

Tom Young

KoukiKeith wrote: »

So does hosting apply or does that fall under the specific defamation defence of innocent dissemination? I have only read about the opposite i.e Godfrey where an ISP refuses to take down a defamatory statement, they will be liable.

It's a separate and standalone defence entirely.

Falls under the eCommerce regime, as mentioned above.

Innocent publication might be raised in-line with this defence, if the hosting defence was deemed to be unavailable, etc. See Tamiz v Google Inc. from last week in the UK Court of Appeal, the internet host may be deemed a published in such circumstances. Arguably then they may try run the innocent publication defence per S.27 of the 2009 Act, though that has different wording and working implications.

frustratedTC

Eoin McKeogh v. John Doe could be relevant too

Tom Young

frustratedTC wrote: »

Eoin McKeogh v. John Doe could be relevant too

For sure, but we've not yet seen a judgment on the overall action. Just the injunction - right?! Unless I've missed something.

mackerf

What do people think can be cut from Equity? Any thoughts on whether I would be mad to cut the following:
-Estoppel (but covering satisfaction)
-Conversion & Election
-Purpose Trusts
-Property Rights of Co-habitees
-Constructive Trusts
-Void/voidable trusts

Cutting out of necessity!

mackerf

And in relation to the chapter on recission - can you focus on undue influence or would you need to know mistake, misrep etc?

frustratedTC

Tom Young wrote: »

For sure, but we've not yet seen a judgment on the overall action. Just the injunction - right?! Unless I've missed something.

Yes just the injunction, but it talks about links and the re-publishing by websites of the defamation

ShamblesB

Do we have to drop the permitted legislation in the day before we need it? And where do we drop it? Also, are we to mark it with our name and id eg mine is 55 or the really long reference no. that's on our correspondence from the law society?

chops018

ShamblesB wrote: »

Do we have to drop the permitted legislation in the day before we need it? And where do we drop it? Also, are we to mark it with our name and id eg mine is 55 or the really long reference no. that's on our correspondence from the law society?

Your exam number, don't write your name on it, and then drop it into the redcow. Preferably the day before, but some people do it early on the day of the exam, but it could be late getting out to you.