FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

mirwin

Have Winter 2009 Griffith Tort Manual, past papers and lots of suggested solutions. €50 for the lot including postage. PM if interested.

ParaLegal

Hey all, can anyone tell me if and how Lisbon Treaty will be examined in March 2010 Eu Law exam? Whats Griffith saying?
Can you believe that it was my last exam to sit in oct 2009 and i freaked out....How i regret it now as it was such a nice paper.....Moral of the story....never under estimate your ability!!!!

page1

Hi i am using a 2007 tort Griffith manual and third edition (2000) McMahon and Binchy textbook. Just wondering are these up to date enough?
I use bailli and irlii for looking up cases, is there any important cases since 2006/2007 that i would need to research. Whats the best way to find recent tort cases.
Thanks.

Qweevs2

Hi,

Just wondering does anyone have an Independent Colleges Constitutional manual for the FE1s that i could buy from them, I am particularily looking for the manual from Independent colleges from either 2008 or 2009.

Please send me a private message if anyone has one that they are willing to sell.

Thanks!

bruxelles

Hey, I have Summer 2009 Independent manuals (+past papers) for Company and EU. Would be happy to sell for €50 each plus p&p but would rather a straight swap for recent Contract or Equity manuals/past papers. PM.

galwaybetty

jtothesums wrote: »

Hey all! Gives me great pleasure to finally be able to post here saying that I've finally passed all 8 FE-1's QUOTE]

Just wanted to say congrats and its great to hear a good news story! I started my fe1s in oct 07 fresh out of college at 22 and im finally down to the final exam in March! It took longer than i expected, especially when i have friends who trained and qualifed as barristers in the time its taking me to pass these exams.

On the bright side im just one exam away and looking forward to starting in September (fingers crossed)! One of my barrister friends suggested doing a diploma in the Law Society or additional exams in the interim? Is anyone doing anything like that?

ananas

Sorry if this is slightly off topic but I want to do the exams in March but I haven't started studying yet. My question is whether its possible to pass with only 3months study? I'm not too concerned with equity and property as I've just finished them and have most of the notes, but I want to do EU and Tort which I haven't a notion of. Does anyone have any words of wisdom? Is it humanly possible to do all the work I have to do in such a short space of time?

Damn you procastination!:mad:

Arsenal1986

God yeah ur fine with 3 months, i started at very start of January last year and got all 4 no problem, similarily started in July and got all 4 in Sep/Oct. Obv hard work required but dont overestimate these exams not unbelievably hard

sunnyside

ananas wrote: »

Sorry if this is slightly off topic but I want to do the exams in March but I haven't started studying yet. My question is whether its possible to pass with only 3months study? :

Yes, I studied contract for 2 days before the exam and passed (not recommending this for metal health reasons) and criminal for 3 months maybe, knew everything in the manual and got 38%. (I've sent it to be rechecked.) There is no logic to it, doubt it has anything much to do with how long you study for.

LILI25

Hi,

anyone interested in buying the companies acts for this years company fe1 exam , send me a PM.

Lisa

ananas

thanks for the replies guys, I was just freaking out whether I'd be able to do them in that time frame as most people I know start ridiculously early and I had the best of intentions to do the same but work got in the way(damn you menial labour!) How did you pick your topics, was it based on hints from independent colleges/griffith or do certain things always come up each year? Would anyone recommend doing the courses online?
Thanks

Arsenal1986

How set are u with ur subject choices? ie. if ur just starting id switch eu for criminal or contract. EU is huuuuuuge an cant really leave anything out. Having said that its marked easy. Contract and criminal are 2 of the easiest, marked relativly easy and small-ish courses.

As for other ones uv done;
Tort:
Can leave alot of topics out, dont try predict too much or rely on hints. use a grid of past papers and pick enuf topics so dat on any given year worse case ud ave 6 qs on the paper. Do u have grids? i can e mail them on if u want? Then know these topics inside out. there are usually2/3 angles each topic could be questioned on.

Equity:
V V V Easy. Again use the grids and again can leave alot out. all the 10 mark qs are really simple an eg would be what are the 4 maxims of equity, writing few sentences on each with mayb 1 case on each would be a passing mark.

Property:
Okay but hard to know what way the new act wil be examined unless he said something in exam report?

Overall, its very doable, I was no great legal scholar in college but didnt find these particularly hard, having said that for 6 weeks beforehand i did nothing and i mean nothing but study

Arsenal1986

2. These exams are soooooo over hyped and talked up. With 2/3 months solid, hard work its nigh on inconcievable you'll fail any so no stress!

3. General Advice for all them, don't listen to hints/tips/predictions of Indo colleges or anyone, its pure guessing there is no logic behind what comes up, no patterns nothing! Best way to cut things out while ensuring you can't get caught out is to use the grids of past papers. Then pick enough topics so that any year you would have at least 6 qs on the paper. Especially good for tort and company where theres v little mixing of topics. HOWEVER dont do this for contract, evthings mixed there!

Company:

I know i just said don't listen to predicitons but there was no liquidation, winding up, recievership or examinership q last time. Usually theres one maybe 2. Therefore I'd know these inside out. ALot of Shareholders i think you could leave out. There will be 1 q on Shs in some form on paper but its just an awful lot of ****e bout meetings etc., focus on SH protection and the transfer and transmission, foss v harbottle....... leave out meetings etc (just a cursory glance so u no the gist)

Know everything about directors. Usually 2 qs on it. Having said that 2 of the chapters in my book anyway were stuff that was pretty much in the companies act which ull have with u, so have all that underlined and u wont have to learn alot of it off. Its also great being v familiar with the act cause i reckon ppl have passed in emergencies creatively rewording things out of the act.

Tort:

is a strange one. Should be very straightforward as he never ever mixes questions and if ever there was a subject perfect for mixing questions it was tort. That signinficantly reduces how hard it is. But then he marks it really really hard! All the lil topics like animals etc leave out. Apart from that only real bankers are psychiatric/nervous shock. Weirdly u never, ever get a q on general negligence principles (since new examiner came in) and thats a huge part of the book, massive part. And they really should ask as its the bread an butter of tort! like u never get a english v irish approach to negligence principles q, nothing on glencar etc. i wouldnt advise skipping it tho cause itd be hard to understand it otherwise.

One final thing on it, read over past problem qs, sometimes he writes them v weirdly as in u dont know what hell hes asking, there was one last time bt a car crash an it could have being any number of things, i didnt do it cause of it.

Also leave out rylands v fletcher never comes up, pretty obsolete now.

Criminal:

V. Straightforward. Leave out maybe first chapter and one about courts/procedure. Just cause they are boring, they do come up. Practice problem qs, alot of mixing but easy enuf, in alot of the problems, there'll be a ton going on ie a robbery, an assault, a murder, a kidnapping, a burlary an a defence of self defence, intoxication all in 1 problem! Whats important to rememeber is u dont have to go into big depth on all of them discuss the major ones eg a murder in depth then at end of essay say..'john may also be liable for robbery because.....' etc one or 2 sentences max on these lil afterthoughts an ur fine. Also dont worry if u miss something, like that someone is guilty of an assault as well as a murder once u spot the big crime no big deal if u miss the lil ones.

Contract:

Suprisingly tricky but v easily marked. Everything is mixed, dont cut anything out! Often 3 big topics mixed into one q. What is important an i didnt realise is, its not end of world if say in a problem theres three topics, an u answer 1 with 2 pages,, 1 with half a page an 1 with a sentence then thats fine! less than ideal but fine. I thought that each topic would be 1/3 of marks, its not.


Equity:
V V V Easy. Again use the grids and again can leave alot out. all the 10 mark qs are really simple an eg would be 'what are the 4 maxims of equity', writing few sentences on each with mayb 1 case on each would easily be a passing mark. Just one caveat, know everything about the topics u do decide to do. For eg Charitable trusts, i only knew alot about those for support of religion etc an not alot about the other types, thinking id only get a general q on it but got asked a specific problem about sports charities. So once uv decided for eg charitable trusts are a topic ur doing, do it all, ev bit. But overall v easy.

enry

Arsenal1986 wrote: »

2. These exams are soooooo over hyped and talked up. With 2/3 months solid, hard work its nigh on inconcievable you'll fail any so no stress!

3. General Advice for all them, don't listen to hints/tips/predictions of Indo colleges or anyone, its pure guessing there is no logic behind what comes up, no patterns nothing! Best way to cut things out while ensuring you can't get caught out is to use the grids of past papers. Then pick enough topics so that any year you would have at least 6 qs on the paper. Especially good for tort and company where theres v little mixing of topics. HOWEVER dont do this for contract, evthings mixed there!

Company:

I know i just said don't listen to predicitons but there was no liquidation, winding up, recievership or examinership q last time. Usually theres one maybe 2. Therefore I'd know these inside out. ALot of Shareholders i think you could leave out. There will be 1 q on Shs in some form on paper but its just an awful lot of ****e bout meetings etc., focus on SH protection and the transfer and transmission, foss v harbottle....... leave out meetings etc (just a cursory glance so u no the gist)

Know everything about directors. Usually 2 qs on it. Having said that 2 of the chapters in my book anyway were stuff that was pretty much in the companies act which ull have with u, so have all that underlined and u wont have to learn alot of it off. Its also great being v familiar with the act cause i reckon ppl have passed in emergencies creatively rewording things out of the act.

Tort:

is a strange one. Should be very straightforward as he never ever mixes questions and if ever there was a subject perfect for mixing questions it was tort. That signinficantly reduces how hard it is. But then he marks it really really hard! All the lil topics like animals etc leave out. Apart from that only real bankers are psychiatric/nervous shock. Weirdly u never, ever get a q on general negligence principles (since new examiner came in) and thats a huge part of the book, massive part. And they really should ask as its the bread an butter of tort! like u never get a english v irish approach to negligence principles q, nothing on glencar etc. i wouldnt advise skipping it tho cause itd be hard to understand it otherwise.

One final thing on it, read over past problem qs, sometimes he writes them v weirdly as in u dont know what hell hes asking, there was one last time bt a car crash an it could have being any number of things, i didnt do it cause of it.

Also leave out rylands v fletcher never comes up, pretty obsolete now.

Criminal:

V. Straightforward. Leave out maybe first chapter and one about courts/procedure. Just cause they are boring, they do come up. Practice problem qs, alot of mixing but easy enuf, in alot of the problems, there'll be a ton going on ie a robbery, an assault, a murder, a kidnapping, a burlary an a defence of self defence, intoxication all in 1 problem! Whats important to rememeber is u dont have to go into big depth on all of them discuss the major ones eg a murder in depth then at end of essay say..'john may also be liable for robbery because.....' etc one or 2 sentences max on these lil afterthoughts an ur fine. Also dont worry if u miss something, like that someone is guilty of an assault as well as a murder once u spot the big crime no big deal if u miss the lil ones.

Contract:

Suprisingly tricky but v easily marked. Everything is mixed, dont cut anything out! Often 3 big topics mixed into one q. What is important an i didnt realise is, its not end of world if say in a problem theres three topics, an u answer 1 with 2 pages,, 1 with half a page an 1 with a sentence then thats fine! less than ideal but fine. I thought that each topic would be 1/3 of marks, its not.


Equity:
V V V Easy. Again use the grids and again can leave alot out. all the 10 mark qs are really simple an eg would be 'what are the 4 maxims of equity', writing few sentences on each with mayb 1 case on each would easily be a passing mark. Just one caveat, know everything about the topics u do decide to do. For eg Charitable trusts, i only knew alot about those for support of religion etc an not alot about the other types, thinking id only get a general q on it but got asked a specific problem about sports charities. So once uv decided for eg charitable trusts are a topic ur doing, do it all, ev bit. But overall v easy.

what about eu, land and constitutional. you know the ones people have most difficulty passing.

Becky55

hi im considerin to giv all 8 a bash in march, sat 4 the last time ended up passin 2, but did nothin for them at all, im def goin to sit 6 in march now and half thinkin of givin the whole 8 a go and giving eu and constitutional a bash aswel, would love peoples opinions on eu and constitutional, always hear that these 2 are the toughest, but i hav to agree with somethin someone else said in an earlier post i.e - never underestimate ur ability!!! but if anyone has any tips with regard sitting all 8 in one go or with regards eu and constitutional, i.e - how tough they are or how many topics would you have to cover for both to pass, id really appreciate it, thanks guys

ananas

Arsenal1986 you are a gem, thanks for the advice, I was idly flicking through the EU manual and its collosal and I just don't feel like cramming it in now!
Phew I feel so much better about it now, next step is to actually begin!:)

sunnyside

Arsenal1986 wrote: »

Criminal:

V. Straightforward. Leave out maybe first chapter and one about courts/procedure. Just cause they are boring, they do come up. Practice problem qs, alot of mixing but easy enuf, in alot of the problems, there'll be a ton going on ie a robbery, an assault, a murder, a kidnapping, a burlary an a defence of self defence, intoxication all in 1 problem! Whats important to rememeber is u dont have to go into big depth on all of them discuss the major ones eg a murder in depth then at end of essay say..'john may also be liable for robbery because.....' etc one or 2 sentences max on these lil afterthoughts an ur fine. Also dont worry if u miss something, like that someone is guilty of an assault as well as a murder once u spot the big crime no big deal if u miss the lil ones.

.

I cannot understand how I got 38% in this I did all of the above. I applied for a re-check. Do re-check results arrive before the March application deadline?

Arsenal1986

Becky55 wrote: »

hi im considerin to giv all 8 a bash in march, sat 4 the last time ended up passin 2, but did nothin for them at all, im def goin to sit 6 in march now and half thinkin of givin the whole 8 a go and giving eu and constitutional a bash aswel, would love peoples opinions on eu and constitutional, always hear that these 2 are the toughest, but i hav to agree with somethin someone else said in an earlier post i.e - never underestimate ur ability!!! but if anyone has any tips with regard sitting all 8 in one go or with regards eu and constitutional, i.e - how tough they are or how many topics would you have to cover for both to pass, id really appreciate it, thanks guys

I did 4 and 4 so I don't have any advice bout 8 in a row but I do know of people that got all 8 in september so it is doable even without the day in between anymore. EU and constitutional are certainly most difficult. This is mainly due to the fact that they are so large and there is very little u can cut out. (this is true especially of Constitutional) C

Constitutional is just impossible to predict and if doing as part of 8 I would imagine ud simply have to gamble and cut out alot, you could get lucky. One thing I would say is generally there is 1/2 qs on rights, unenumerated rights. always one on president or AG or Dail or courts and one on due process/access to justice. After that don't have many tips on it sorry.

EU is certainly the easier of the two in my opinion. You can certainly cut some topics out eg Citizenship i would cut out. You're guaranteed 1 q on institutions, 2 on free movement of goods, 1 on services/workers/capital,

brian__foley

Arsenal1986 wrote: »

2. These exams are soooooo over hyped and talked up. With 2/3 months solid, hard work its nigh on inconcievable you'll fail any so no stress!

3. General Advice for all them, don't listen to hints/tips/predictions of Indo colleges or anyone, its pure guessing there is no logic behind what comes up, no patterns nothing! Best way to cut things out while ensuring you can't get caught out is to use the grids of past papers. Then pick enough topics so that any year you would have at least 6 qs on the paper. Especially good for tort and company where theres v little mixing of topics. HOWEVER dont do this for contract, evthings mixed there!

You're beyond correct on this. There are no real patterns, no logic that can be relied on. Formalities was on Contact in the two October papers in 2005, and then never again until October 2008! There's no particular reason for this, but the idea that "the statute of frauds never comes up" didn't pay off in 2008.

That said, there are assumptions more valid than others such as mistake, frustration, offer acceptance, tend to occur year after year, but no examiner examines their own patterns before setting an exam. These are just assumptions based on past behaviour - no guarantee for the future.

So, I wouldn't necessarily stick with pouring over the grids to find the six discrete topics that come up every year because (a) you mightn't find them (e.g. constitutional) or (b) by the above logic there is no logical reason for those six to re-appear (although 5 might).

The key to these fe1's is to know a bit about everything and not to fall into the hole of thinking you need dissertations on anything and to understand every particular nuance and background fact to the cases. If you can confidently look at past papers and say "I can see the issues, and I could certainly see myself going for 30 minutes on that" you'll be fine, whether or not you can compare and "contrast Lord Denning's philosophy of consideration with that of Lord Mansfield..." etc...

There are reasonably high failure rates, but for all sorts of reasons that don't reflect the difficulty of the exams. Just one point could be made here relates to students taking four, but concentrating on three as a matter of choice. That would skew the failure stats (such that they are) by what one could assume is a considerable measure - i.e. students failing not because they can't do the paper, but because they have chosen (whether validly or not) to concentrate on 3 out of 4.

Hope that helps (a bit)

brian__foley

page1 wrote: »

Hi i am using a 2007 tort Griffith manual and third edition (2000) McMahon and Binchy textbook. Just wondering are these up to date enough?
I use bailli and irlii for looking up cases, is there any important cases since 2006/2007 that i would need to research. Whats the best way to find recent tort cases.
Thanks.

Honestly, the Trinity College annual update on Tort conference is the best way that I know to keep updated on tort, but its very practice orientated with superb papers and information given. I'm not sure whether the Library holds the papers and even if it does, whether you could read them on an ALCID card (assuming you're not a TCD grad). Other than that, you could read the Annual Review of Irish Law (William Binchy is an editor, and its especially good on Tort), although I'm not sure what the most recent edition is (i.e. what year).

McGarr Solicitors also keeps a good blog which refers sometimes to developments in tort and neligence. It's here http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/

And lexology.com brings together all the "firm" updates that are done - i.e. the nice short articles you can find on certain firm's websites about recent developments etc. It's worth a look.

enry

just wondering what are the average failure rates for these exams. the common consensus as for as i can see is that they are very easy (from this thread). eg one poster said he got two exams out of four but did no work for them.

brian__foley

enry wrote: »

just wondering what are the average failure rates for these exams. the common conscencious as for as i can see is that they are very easy (from this thread). eg one poster said he got two exams out of four but did no work for them.

None really public. The E.U. examiner (I think) makes reference to failure rates in his reports, but the rest is anecdotal. I wouldn't say they are very easy at all, but hard work, a good study plan, consistent attention and a few pound spent on whatever revision methods a student believes will help (good nutshells, a few text books, past exams from the law society etc), will get one through them without heartbreak. I think the real difficulty is how so many people have to combine the time needed with work / family etc. It's fine if you can take a decent study period in the run up to the exam but some people can't get that time...

shaneybaby

brian__foley wrote: »

None really public. The E.U. examiner (I think) makes reference to failure rates in his reports, but the rest is anecdotal. I wouldn't say they are very easy at all, but hard work, a good study plan, consistent attention and a few pound spent on whatever revision methods a student believes will help (good nutshells, a few text books, past exams from the law society etc), will get one through them without heartbreak. I think the real difficulty is how so many people have to combine the time needed with work / family etc. It's fine if you can take a decent study period in the run up to the exam but some people can't get that time...

Glad someone said it. i was getting a bit worried when people were saying some of them were "V V V easy"!! Maybe if you can spend the weeks up to the exam in full time study and not getting calls from work on the way into the exam (and yeah i did turn my mobile off for the rest of them ) Some people choose to work and study and will probably spend a bit longer trying to get them, others do the FE1s full time. If you can afford it and have a TC lined up go full time, else it's each to their own.

Of the Girl

I have the following Independent College manuals for sale with exam papers, reports and suggested solutions.

Tort Summer 09
Tort Winder 08

Also Constitutional Law Nutshell - Fergus Ryan 2008

PM me if interested

_JOE_

shaneybaby wrote: »

Glad someone said it. i was getting a bit worried when people were saying some of them were "V V V easy"!! Maybe if you can spend the weeks up to the exam in full time study and not getting calls from work on the way into the exam (and yeah i did turn my mobile off for the rest of them ) Some people choose to work and study and will probably spend a bit longer trying to get them, others do the FE1s full time. If you can afford it and have a TC lined up go full time, else it's each to their own.

That's exactly the point...some students can afford to go to as many prep courses, one day courses or whatever's on, and at the same time have no other commitments for the year. If life was only that simple! You could hardly have an excuse if that was the case...

When i was studying for them, i was juggling working full time in a law firm, doing a postgrad, training/matches with my football team and training in the gym with my brother in the evening...and trying to have some sort of a life at the same time...
I don't think i could have even afforded to do a prep course if i wanted to...i was just happy i could study late at night in my apartment in the early hours!!

Arsenal1986

By no means was I saying they are easy exams when you can't devote yourself to them! I was merely trying to encourage the OP who was discouraged by thought of doing 4 in 3 months time. I was lucky to be able to devote myself fulltime to do the exams and thus found them straightforward, I've no doubt I would have failed several if I'd had to work too. No insult was intended!

page1

brian__foley wrote: »

Honestly, the Trinity College annual update on Tort conference is the best way that I know to keep updated on tort, but its very practice orientated with superb papers and information given. I'm not sure whether the Library holds the papers and even if it does, whether you could read them on an ALCID card (assuming you're not a TCD grad). Other than that, you could read the Annual Review of Irish Law (William Binchy is an editor, and its especially good on Tort), although I'm not sure what the most recent edition is (i.e. what year).

McGarr Solicitors also keeps a good blog which refers sometimes to developments in tort and neligence. It's here http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/

And lexology.com brings together all the "firm" updates that are done - i.e. the nice short articles you can find on certain firm's websites about recent developments etc. It's worth a look.

Thanks for that Brian ill check those out.

jgjkl

Hello everybody,
I am looking for MOST RECENT, CLEAN GRIFFITH constitutional and criminal law manuals. Is anybody willing to sell?
Kind Regards

littlemac1980

brian__foley wrote: »

... you'll be fine, whether or not you can compare and "contrast Lord Denning's philosophy of consideration with that of Lord Mansfield..." etc...

I know I've passed Contract already and I should be concentrating any accidental academic focus on those exams I still have pass, but, the nature of study is that It doesn't matter what your studying, the material you're not studying is the interesting material... so which case are we talikng about????

brian__foley

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I know I've passed Contract already and I should be concentrating any accidental academic focus on those exams I still have pass, but, the nature of study is that It doesn't matter what your studying, the material you're not studying is the interesting material... so which case are we talikng about????

None really. It's just a thought that has occured to me - i.e. Manfield's apparent view (whether he held it or not) that morality was sufficient to bind one to a promise could be examined against Denning's "re-invigoration" of Hughes in High Trees. It's not a crazy argument to propose that promissory estoppel weakens the common law insistence on consideration and I think you can find an article somewhere where the writer described how, in interivew, he pressed Denning on the point and Denning said something along the lines of "he never liked the doctrine of consideration anyway". You could also look at how Denning wasn't "into" the notion that performing a statutory duty automatically meant you couldn't pass consideration. Essentially, I suppose I've just always felt Denning's judgments were close to Mansfield in the "anti-consideration" leaning of them, but he couldn't say that outright.

It's not an actual fe1 question - just the kind of thing that you could think about if you wanted.

On an aside; Drogba injured / Fab doubtful. Ugh.