FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

KeepTheFaith

JCJCJC wrote: »

The Act and explanatory memo are readily available on-line, make sure you have double-sided printing because they make a big document together.
I did the Griffiths intensive revision course at the weekend, and their lecturer was absolutely 100% sure on the Act being fully examinable - you need to know it thoroughly in her opinion, right down to knowing the section numbers, which is no joke since there are 133 sections and so many topics. She agreed that the LawSoc are being most unfair in not having it both on the syllabus and not letting students bring in a clean Act. There is no logic in being able to bring in the Succession Act and not this one, it's now the law.
As for a summary, some of the bigger Dublin law offices have a few notes on it, but really the explanatory memorandum is the best thing, it will give you ideas on context, public policy, etc.
Her starting point is this isn't an academic law exam - the standard they want is what a practising solicitor would say, real up-to-date accurate law.
Also, if you're covering succession, see what the examiner siad the last time about recent cases that should be mentioned, you'd be foolish to ignore. She thinks JA might simply move from being the examiner, to being the external examiner, so his views are still very sugnificant.

JC

JC would you be able to say what these important recent cases are in Succession or what part of Succession they are related to if you could? I'm using an oldish manual.. Cheers!

Amigone

Did the GCD EU Seminar last night and I think I left it feeling scared more than anything.

Firstly, I felt that it was approached like everyone in the room had done the entire EU revision course with Griffith - which makes no sense as why would someone pay €150 for a intensive seminar then! She kept referring to 'during the course', 'in the manual'...

Secondly, it was as if she thought we all knew everything about Lisbon and the effects it had on the syllabus and literally we were just there to revise! This is not what I was told the intensive course would be - It was meant to be a revision seminar bringing people up to speed with the changes Lisbon had THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW ALREADY.

Like 50 minutes in before she copped that half the class didn't know what the LTEU or TFEU was!

I came away with 42% in EU last sitting and felt confident that i'd make up that 8% no problem this time around.... now after last night I'm back in panicville!

legallad

Amigone wrote: »

Did the GCD EU Seminar last night and I think I left it feeling scared more than anything.

Firstly, I felt that it was approached like everyone in the room had done the entire EU revision course with Griffith - which makes no sense as why would someone pay €150 for a intensive seminar then! She kept referring to 'during the course', 'in the manual'...

Secondly, it was as if she thought we all knew everything about Lisbon and the effects it had on the syllabus and literally we were just there to revise! This is not what I was told the intensive course would be - It was meant to be a revision seminar bringing people up to speed with the changes Lisbon had THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW ALREADY.

Like 50 minutes in before she copped that half the class didn't know what the LTEU or TFEU was!

I came away with 42% in EU last sitting and felt confident that i'd make up that 8% no problem this time around.... now after last night I'm back in panicville!

€150 for how many hours?? Just out of interest what were the main areas they focused on?

Amigone

Six hours!

Which I suppose was ok... ish... Better offer than in comparison to Independent Colleges which I think wanted something like €195... and having done my courses there I would have rathered but when it came down to it Griffith was cheaper.

brian__foley

Amigone wrote: »

Did the GCD EU Seminar last night and I think I left it feeling scared more than anything.

Firstly, I felt that it was approached like everyone in the room had done the entire EU revision course with Griffith - which makes no sense as why would someone pay €150 for a intensive seminar then! She kept referring to 'during the course', 'in the manual'...

Secondly, it was as if she thought we all knew everything about Lisbon and the effects it had on the syllabus and literally we were just there to revise! This is not what I was told the intensive course would be - It was meant to be a revision seminar bringing people up to speed with the changes Lisbon had THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW ALREADY.

Like 50 minutes in before she copped that half the class didn't know what the LTEU or TFEU was!

I came away with 42% in EU last sitting and felt confident that i'd make up that 8% no problem this time around.... now after last night I'm back in panicville!

Hi...sorry you feel this way, but the course is, to use your words "a revision seminar". Revision is not the same as teaching for the first time.

It is about revising material. The presumption is that people have worked on the material this close to the exam and the seminars are there to assist in revision of that work.

Thus, when I approach contract it's on the basis that everyone appreciates that I'm not talking double-dutch and its about revision. Everyone in that class (i.e. contract) seemed to appreciate and acknowledge this. The EU seminar went one further with the provision of materials / manual extacts on Lisbon, but it was a revision seminar - titled as such, delivered as such and advertised as such. As early as Jan 25 when I posted elsewhere in relation to the courses ( see here ) the following words were used:-

"Just to let you know that I'm (or, GCD is, more accurately) pleased to
offer our Intensive One Day revision courses for the fe1
examinations. From my own experience in delivering these, people have had very positive things to say in respect of feedback but bear in mind - these are revision courses, not "spoon feed" courses and they are *not* a

substitute. "

I think that is comparable to the language used on the www.gcd.ie/fe1 site also, if somewhat less formal.

I'm sorry you didn't find the seminar helpful in this respect and feel free to contact myself in respect of this.

Regards

Brian

Amigone

Brian, I wasn't gunning down GCD or taking away from the seminar.... I thought that the six hours were intensely packed (good thing!) and the material provided were top class... including chapters of GCD's own EU manual which they didn't have to do and was a bonus extra.

However my gripe was that, while I've been studying EU up to now with Lisbon in mind, I needed it communicated to me in a way that didn't presume I already knew it inside out.

Again, I'm not taking away from GCD... just didn't coming away feeling as positive about the exam as I had going in!

brian__foley

Amigone wrote: »

Brian, I wasn't gunning down GCD or taking away from the seminar.... I thought that the six hours were intensely packed (good thing!) and the material provided were top class... including chapters of GCD's own EU manual which they didn't have to do and was a bonus extra.

However my gripe was that, while I've been studying EU up to now with Lisbon in mind, I needed it communicated to me in a way that didn't presume I already knew it inside out.

Again, I'm not taking away from GCD... just didn't coming away feeling as positive about the exam as I had going in!

Free speech - say what you want! But the above outlined that you were expressly told by someone that the seminar was something other than revision; "This is not what I was told the intensive course would be ". That's what I wanted to clear up, since the courses are advertised in pretty clear terms as to what they are and what they are not.

Regards

Brian

silence29

long time reader of this thread, i have just constitution left to sit and im sure along with others are finding it hard to cut back on some chapters, i could not afford any of the griffith courses but am wondering if anyone on here did the griffith constitutional course and could pass on any of the tips that they provided for the upcoming paper, i know they are just tips but would be good to compare with the work i have already done, it would be much appreciated.

brian__foley

silence29 wrote: »

long time reader of this thread, i have just constitution left to sit and im sure along with others are finding it hard to cut back on some chapters, i could not afford any of the griffith courses but am wondering if anyone on here did the griffith constitutional course and could pass on any of the tips that they provided for the upcoming paper, i know they are just tips but would be good to compare with the work i have already done, it would be much appreciated.

Starting point would be get familiar with examiner's own articles etc - that's paid off year after year (but wouldn't give you 5 questions!). The site www.legalperiodicals.org lets you search authors by name. Common mistakes include over-exaggerating the effect of Sinnott/TD (I think mentioned in three reports in a row now). Other than that, the "tips" are unfortunately limited to the predictable ones. However, one tip (in a sense) is to not avoid the recurrent (but minor in the grand scheme of things) issues such carrying on proceedings in private, cabinet confidentiality etc. Topical issues couldn't be disregarded either - i.e. SC decision in Embryo matter, and on same-sex couples - McD v L etc. This may also be a ridiculous shot in the dark, but the examiner may be involved in a case involving union rights - I don't what that could mean, but it's just a point.

Looking backwards, you'd probably have 5 questions each year knowing all the law on rights (including fair procedure rights) and understanding all the separation of powers materials, but one couldn't guarantee that going forward.

Sorry, that's probably useless, but I think that's the nature of the beast...

I would say though whereas you should aim for completeness, credit on this exam appears to go for understanding and application of the law one knows, rather than knowing "lots of law". If you are up-to-date, with a few cases to illustrate the points, you should be fine.

silence29

brian__foley wrote: »

Starting point would be get familiar with examiner's own articles etc - that's paid off year after year (but wouldn't give you 5 questions!). The site www.legalperiodicals.org lets you search authors by name. Common mistakes include over-exaggerating the effect of Sinnott/TD (I think mentioned in three reports in a row now). Other than that, the "tips" are unfortunately limited to the predictable ones. However, one tip (in a sense) is to not avoid the recurrent (but minor in the grand scheme of things) issues such carrying on proceedings in private, cabinet confidentiality etc. Topical issues couldn't be disregarded either - i.e. SC decision in Embryo matter, and on same-sex couples - McD v L etc. This may also be a ridiculous shot in the dark, but the examiner may be involved in a case involving union rights - I don't what that could mean, but it's just a point.

Looking backwards, you'd probably have 5 questions each year knowing all the law on rights (including fair procedure rights) and understanding all the separation of powers materials, but one couldn't guarantee that going forward.

Sorry, that's probably useless, but I think that's the nature of the beast...

I would say though whereas you should aim for completeness, credit on this exam appears to go for understanding and application of the law one knows, rather than knowing "lots of law". If you are up-to-date, with a few cases to illustrate the points, you should be fine.

thanks brian for a speedy response, i'll take it on board

brian__foley

silence29 wrote: »

thanks brian for a speedy response, i'll take it on board

There's an earlier post where I went through what I thought was key for the exam, but it's really just a re-statement of the syllabus. I forgot to mention as well that the re-emergence of the "children's rights" referendum would be something to think about, but you'd have that covered if you read the examiners piece in the IJFL. You can view all the relevant submissions to the committee (especially the bar council one) online, which would help in an understanding of the family / child welfare situation - but that's probably more work at the worst possible time!

Amigone

Is it right that Blackstones 2009-2010 doesn't have the Lisbon amendments?

I'm between two minds whether to get it having never used it before... will it be a help or a hindrance?

Advice please!!

BlueSkinny

this probably sounds like a ridiculous question but how long typically are your answers for an FE1 question?? I know its like asking how long is a piece of string but just a generally answer,

Amigone

BlueSkinny wrote: »

this probably sounds like a ridiculous question but how long typically are your answers for an FE1 question?? I know its like asking how long is a piece of string but just a generally answer,

BlueSkinnny it varies so much... but a good quality not quantity answer I find can range from between 4-6 pages... but it really isn't about length! If you've ran out of time and made five bullet points in a fifth answer that can save you as much as a 10 page... I know because I got 50% in company last sitting and my fifth question was just that.... five bullet points and it must have made that difference between 49% and 50%!

BlueSkinny

Thanks for the tip!! where about in the process are u , have u many more to get??? what kind of results did u have ?? are u looking for an traineeship??

JCJCJC

brian__foley wrote: »

Hi...sorry you feel this way, but the course is, to use your words "a revision seminar". Revision is not the same as teaching for the first time.

I was at that Griffiths EU seminar too, I found it very good, and the lecturer was totally au fait with the subject material, very, very impressive and the six hours passed quickly. I did EU in my degree and got reasonably good marks in college at the time but it was pre-Lisbon, so I needed the refresher and the materials - the course did exactly that, with the usual high standard of Griffith exam analysis, tips for likely areas and examiner profile which are brilliant. EU isn't conceptually challenging, it's just like eating a ton of weetabix with no sugar, you have to get through it. By that I mean that writing an essay about the institutions would be like writing an essay about the House of Lords in a criminal law exam.
Apart from the course fee, I was at work in Galway (90 miles from home) until lunchtime that day, left Galway for a fast run to Griffith and drove 150 miles home from Dublin after the course that night, 370 miles in the (20-hr) day altogether, - quite a bit of effort if I say so myself, and I still think it was well worth both the fee and the effort.

JC

JCJCJC

KeepTheFaith wrote: »

JC would you be able to say what these important recent cases are in Succession or what part of Succession they are related to if you could? I'm using an oldish manual.. Cheers!

On spouse's rights - Elliot & Ors v Stamp [2006] IEHC 336, O"Donnell v O'Donnell [1999], Blackhall v Blackhall* {1996], Breen & Kennedy v Breen & Ors. [1995]

On S 117 - moral duty - Re Estate of ABC (etc) [2003], W(c) v W(L) [2005] A v C & Anor [2007], McDonald v Norris, Re ABC as applied in H (a minor) v H [2008] IEHC163

* that should be easy enough to remember for obvious reasons, but the 'alphabet soup' cases boil my head - I absolutely hate them and can never remember them in Family Law either.

JC

Jicked

Has anyone got a 'checklist' for Internal Taxation cases in EU? I can't get my head around it, here's as far as I can work out...

So for Customs Duties, you'd first make sure it's a good, then see is it being levied because of a change in border, and then see is there an exception for it.

How do you go about an internal tax question?
See is it a good, then use the four points in Denkavit Loire to ensure it is an internal tax.
Where to from there?
Test for are they similar goods, if so check are they directly discriminating (in which case they're def prohibited) or indirectly discriminating (in which case they could be justified).
If its directly discriminating, or indirect but not justified what do you do? Just level out both taxes at the lower rate?

If the products aren't similar then they'll be competing.
What is it you do after you spot that they're competing? And what is the end result?

Jicked, on internal taxation, if the goods are not similar but are competing then you check to see if the internal tax has a protective effect. To check for a protective effect you apply the small but significant non-transitory change in price test (SSNIP) to discover if the products are in competition. The French tax system was held to have a protective effect on wine over spirits. The UK tax system was held to have a protective effect on beer over wine.

I had not considered that your advice would have to go as far as what to do if there is a breach but that whether there is a breach or not is often enough.

KeepTheFaith

JCJCJC wrote: »

On spouse's rights - Elliot & Ors v Stamp [2006] IEHC 336, O"Donnell v O'Donnell [1999], Blackhall v Blackhall* {1996], Breen & Kennedy v Breen & Ors. [1995]

On S 117 - moral duty - Re Estate of ABC (etc) [2003], W(c) v W(L) [2005] A v C & Anor [2007], McDonald v Norris, Re ABC as applied in H (a minor) v H [2008] IEHC163

* that should be easy enough to remember for obvious reasons, but the 'alphabet soup' cases boil my head - I absolutely hate them and can never remember them in Family Law either.

JC

Cheers JC I'll keep those in mind! Yeah I know It's one of those incredibly annoying things in Law.. I find I can learn them with enough concentration. Land is looking like a long shot at this stage. Has the bill been signed into Law by the Minister yes??

Jicked

Deleted User wrote: »

Jicked, on internal taxation, if the goods are not similar but are competing then you check to see if the internal tax has a protective effect. To check for a protective effect you apply the small but significant non-transitory change in price test (SSNIP) to discover if the products are in competition. The French tax system was held to have a protective effect on wine over spirits. The UK tax system was held to have a protective effect on beer over wine.

I had not considered that your advice would have to go as far as what to do if there is a breach but that whether there is a breach or not is often enough.

Great, thanks a lot for that. So basically the competing test is an extra test you apply if you can't get them on similar being similar goods. And some differentiation in tax level is acceptable for competing goods, once it doesn't overstep a mark. I think that's a little clearer now, thanks!

JCJCJC

KeepTheFaith wrote: »

Cheers JC I'll keep those in mind! Yeah I know It's one of those incredibly annoying things in Law.. I find I can learn them with enough concentration. Land is looking like a long shot at this stage. Has the bill been signed into Law by the Minister yes??

Unfortunately it has, but the Law Society don't seem to have heard yet because it's not on the syllabus, and half the old stuff it has made obsolete remains there. Dr. Jack Anderson said in his last report by way of prospective advice:

"...get to know the 2009 Act and the accompanying work of the Law Reform Commission. The latter explains why the Act was needed and what it sets out to achieve..."

That puts it to you between the two eyes - not on the syllabus, but the examiner expects it - isn't that helpful? In my humble opinion, not only should it be expressly on the syllabus, but we should be allowed bring it in, like the Succession Act 1965, because it is so new. As for the LRC, remember that the Bill was substantially amended in a few places on its way through the houses, so what the LRC wanted and what they got mightn't line up too well. I think a better starting point is the explanatory memorandum that came out with the Act. All this is great in theory but reading that stuff takes time and time is running out.

Also, remember Dr Jack isn't the examiner any more, although well informed opinion suggests that he hasn't entirely disappeared..;)

Finally - here's a Limerick from my college days, or nights to be more accurate, to help you remember a case about witnessing

There was an oul' man called MULHALL
Who left his poor widow f*ckall
She said 'on the night'
there was no line of sight'
And she took the whole lot after all

You'll never forget Mulhall v Mulhall after that!

JC

slatts09

Does anybody know where to come across a hard copy of any of the 3 comapny law act texts permitted for the company law exam?

I have only come across the mccann and courtney text so far which is around 160e, quite expansive.

McBee

slatts09 wrote: »

Does anybody know where to come across a hard copy of any of the 3 comapny law act texts permitted for the company law exam?

I have only come across the mccann and courtney text so far which is around 160e, quite expansive.

I have the latest student edition of McCann and Courtney and willing to sell for 70euro - I have tabbed it with different colours relating to different topics. Used only once - for exam in October 09. PM if interested!

brian__foley

BlueSkinny wrote: »

this probably sounds like a ridiculous question but how long typically are your answers for an FE1 question?? I know its like asking how long is a piece of string but just a generally answer,

Here's just a general point about marking law scripts (in my experience).

A paper has to do a lot more to get from, say, 60 to 70 than to get from 0 to 10. You can apply that logic throughout the marking range and (perhaps) conclude that something like an ever increasing curve exists - i.e. the material / analysis required to move from 68 to 70 is far more than needed to move from, say, 28 to 37 and so on.

The knock on effect is that if you have time decisions to make, I'd be far less inclined to spend time "perfecting" an answer that you may feel is in or about the 60 mark etc. That time could increase it to, say, 65 etc. But the same amount of time starting another question afresh (i.e. moving from 0 upwards) is likely to yield far more marks even if all you do is throw down accurate bullet points. Whereas I would never see high marks for a pure bullet point answer, it would (simply in my view and experience) be far more likely to yield the candidate marks in the 0-40 range which, although not great in that context, is far more beneficial than trying to "perfect" another question. For example:-

Student A has 10 minutes left and has done 4 questions which are worth 58, 58, 60 and 60 each. He spends those 10 minutes "perfecting" two of those questions bringing him up 5 marks each. He gets 63 + 58+ 65 + 60 / 5 = 49.2 and a possible fail (depending on rounding). The ten minutes brings him 20 marks.

Student B has 10 minutes left and has done 4 questions which are worth 58, 58, 60 and 60 each. He spends 10 minutes putting down basic, but accurate bullet points on his fifth question for which the examiner gives him 35. He gets 58 + 58 + 60 + 60 + 35 / 5= 54.2. The ten minutes gets him a fail on the 5th question, but 35 marks in the process, again, on the logic that examiners tend (but that is not a general rule, nor a statement of prediction about fe1's) to be "easier" on marks in the lower regions than at the higher ends.

A bit complex, but it may help you making decisions on the day as to where to spend time.

You couldn't be more right Brian. To extend your argument from exam execution into exam preparation, knowing at least a little about enough topics to attempt five questions is vital. So, for those of us with all too distant memories of Law degrees, be prepared to think all the way back and improvise with whatever comes to you.

Aimee34

Hi,

I know this has been asked a few times but still confused.....Blackstones doesnt have the new Lisbon ammendments as far as I know.... but on the Law Society list of permitted legislation it says The Consolidated EU Treaties are permitted, as published by the Official Publications Office of the EU.....anyone have these/know where to get them????

Thanks!

The Official Publications Office is on the corner of Molesworth St and Dawson St (not far from St Stephens Green). You may know Molesworth St as where the passport office is. Note that they are not open weekends.

Amigone

Aimee34 wrote: »

Hi,

I know this has been asked a few times but still confused.....Blackstones doesnt have the new Lisbon ammendments as far as I know.... but on the Law Society list of permitted legislation it says The Consolidated EU Treaties are permitted, as published by the Official Publications Office of the EU.....anyone have these/know where to get them????

Thanks!

The EU official publications bookshop has an online shop...

here's the link to get Official Copy of Lison Treaty

http://bookshop.europa.eu/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/EU-Bookshop-Site/en_GB/-/EUR/ViewPublication-Start?PublicationKey=FXAC07306

Pat.Kenny

I'm living quite far away from the test centres and don't really want to scarifice time having to go up the day before to get legislation checked, is it definitely possible to have it checked on the actual day? I saw this dicussed earlier but didn't notice any definite answer on it.