FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Mshellster

Best of luck to everyone sitting Tort tomorrow. Is there any recent important changes in areas of examiners (cases/articles/judicial interpretation regarding prospects of survival) that should be noted? Just scrambling to cover this topic quickly and my notes are very out of date on it

BlueSkinny

Hi guys ,

sitting company on friday and IM freaking out !! does anyone here have predictions for it from either Griffith or Independent ???

IM very nervous and honestly very underprepared!!

I would be so grateful if someone was to give me the predictions so I could narrow it down for the final few days.


Im already studying

Ultra Vires
Separate Legal Personality
Directors
Shareholder protection


I need some advice guys , im really in a bind

thank you so much

Mshellster

I'm equally freaked out! There's just so much to cover with company it's hard to know what to leave out and things tend to come up loads of different ways it has been so confused! I can barely remember case names let alone remember what topics they relate to. I'm just hoping it's a halfway nice paper or that whoever corrects is feeling exceptionally generous with the marks!

Hogzy

Is there anyone out there at the moment who is doing EU and have not attended a Preparation course or revision Seminar with Griffith or Independant Colleges?
How are you finding the Lisbon changes?

Laura1010

I'm confused and hope someone can help!

On page 241 of my gcd manual (2007-08) it states at paragraph 18-89:

"The European Court of Human Rights subsequently held that the English law of adverse possession was in violation of the Convention and, more particularly, of Article I, Protocol 1...... The Court found in particular that the lack of compensation for land owners whose title was extinguished by adverse possession was violatory"

However, earlier on in the chapter, and indeed from reading the actual judgment as well as academic commentary, it seems that the ECtHR found the law of AP was not in violation of the Convention.

Am I missing something here??

JCJCJC

Laura1010 wrote: »

I'm confused and hope someone can help!

On page 241 of my gcd manual (2007-08) it states at paragraph 18-89:

"The European Court of Human Rights subsequently held that the English law of adverse possession was in violation of the Convention and, more particularly, of Article I, Protocol 1...... The Court found in particular that the lack of compensation for land owners whose title was extinguished by adverse possession was violatory"

However, earlier on in the chapter, and indeed from reading the actual judgment as well as academic commentary, it seems that the ECtHR found the law of AP was not in violation of the Convention.

Am I missing something here??

I think you are! It went to a European Grand Chamber hearing after the EctHR:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2357510.ece

If you have access to Westlaw there's an article by Una Woods on the Irish implications ( in essence: none) I think. PM me after tomorrow if you can't find it. The key issue imho is animus possidendi, treated a bit differently in Ireland than in England. Also, the abandonment of the future-use school of thought.

JC

Laura1010

Thanks JC! It's making a lot more sense now...

JCJCJC

My pleasure. I wish EU law made some sense to me, Property (land law) isn't too bad because it generally follows some kind of common sense. Look out for the new Land & Conveyancing Law Reform Act (?title?), your edition of the manual won't have it, a few little things in the Act bear on closely-related issues like acquiring easements by prescription etc.

I'm stressed out about Tort in the morning, my first FE1.

Anyone interested in a pint :pac: and an exam autopsy :eek: in Limerick at the end of next week?

JC

Laura1010

Yeah, I'm relying on the exlanatory memo to supplement my out of date notes so fingers crossed I've picked up most of the significant changes. I agree, EU is a nightmare... Best of luck with tomorrow!

Hogzy

Best of luck tomorrow lads, Im gonna be going in for 45mins and leaving. 4th subject is the first one!:o

BlueSkinny

hey hozy

are you gonna write anything during your sitting or just put down your examination number ?

cooper10

Hi,

Am considering sitting 5 FE1s in Oct and I'm looking for most recent manuals from Independent College or Griffith for Tort, Constitutional, Criminal, Contract and Equity.

Any sellers please let me know!

Thanks

Hogzy

BlueSkinny wrote: »

hey hozy

are you gonna write anything during your sitting or just put down your examination number ?

Ended up answering 2 questions (to pass the time) from what i could remember from tort in my undergrad, Even used 2 cases, Even if i got 100% in both questions it still wasnt enough to pass. It was good to go in and get the feel of things though. Its my first time doing them!

McBee

cooper10 wrote: »

Hi,

Am considering sitting 5 FE1s in Oct and I'm looking for most recent manuals from Independent College or Griffith for Tort, Constitutional, Criminal, Contract and Equity.

Any sellers please let me know!

Thanks

You may be better waiting until the results for this batch of exams are out. People will be in a better position to sell manuals when they know they've passed!

Arsenal1986

Tough paper today i hear? No defamation is strange!

Hogzy

Arsenal1986 wrote: »

Tough paper today i hear? No defamation is strange!

Yup, thought that was very strange indeed, Alot of people were banking on it! Jesus going down this route there wont be any Lisbon question now on the EU paper :P

slatts09

Hi,
will they accept college id as a form of identity at exams.

NickDrake

Hogzy wrote: »

Yup, thought that was very strange indeed, Alot of people were banking on it! Jesus going down this route there wont be any Lisbon question now on the EU paper :P

Strange indeed. I left out defamation as it is such a time consuming topic. He really loved questions on the big freeze this time. Seemed obsessed with it. Causation came up twice.

JCJCJC

Hogzy wrote: »

Yup, thought that was very strange indeed, Alot of people were banking on it! Jesus going down this route there wont be any Lisbon question now on the EU paper :P

Eu with no Lisbon would be no great loss . Tort was odd indeed, no defamation, no nuisance or Rylands. It ws possible to do five problems and no essay if you wanted to go that route. Overall, I thought it wasn't too bad, but i couldn't see what was the point in the question (No 2) concerning Jack the motorist who stopped to help the unconscious girl who'd crashed into a tree. Maybe it was trespass to the person, negligence, wtf? If you understood it, please enlighten me!

JC

NickDrake

JCJCJC wrote: »

Eu with no Lisbon would be no great loss . Tort was odd indeed, no defamation, no nuisance or Rylands. It ws possible to do five problems and no essay if you wanted to go that route. Overall, I thought it wasn't too bad, but i couldn't see what was the point in the question (No 2) concerning Jack the motorist who stopped to help the unconscious girl who'd crashed into a tree. Maybe it was trespass to the person, negligence, wtf? If you understood it, please enlighten me!

JC

I took it as negligence and causation. I think material contribution and Novus Actus were the big issues. Duty of care as a bystander and trespass could be brought it.

Good bit in the question. Ya could do 5 problems no bother. Strange enough paper.

Ruby83

JCJCJC wrote: »

Eu with no Lisbon would be no great loss . Tort was odd indeed, no defamation, no nuisance or Rylands. It ws possible to do five problems and no essay if you wanted to go that route. Overall, I thought it wasn't too bad, but i couldn't see what was the point in the question (No 2) concerning Jack the motorist who stopped to help the unconscious girl who'd crashed into a tree. Maybe it was trespass to the person, negligence, wtf? If you understood it, please enlighten me!

JC

I would have answered that on causation but I still think that it was a bit odd so I left it out. I thought duty of care probably wouldn't have come up and so causation wouldn't matter. Thought it was better to stick to the actual questions I knew the answer to.
Was an ok paper. Would have been pretty screwed if you were relying solely on tips I think!!

mandz

Arsenal1986 wrote: »

Tough paper today i hear? No defamation is strange!

Thank god I'm not the only one who thought that... this is my last one and I suspect I'll be sitting it in Sept/Oct

Anyone do the essay on economic loss or vicarious liability? Just wondering what people wrote. I usually shy away from essays but topics I covered steered me away from some of two of the problem questions

JCJCJC

mandz wrote: »

Anyone do the essay on economic loss or vicarious liability? Just wondering what people wrote.

I did the VL one as my last and weakest. Just basically said what it was, scope and course of employment, defining employment, stuck in the few cases I could think of. On the comment/discuss angle, I talked about public policy issues, incorporation, creation of a legal duty to supervise, suing the 'deeper pocket' of the employer and whatever other waffle came into my head in the last ten minutes ;-)

JC

mandz

Yeah wrote about that myself. God I hope the examiner is in a good mood when they pick up my paper.

Oh did anyone stick in a point that Ellen could possibly be liable for professional negligence? I just stuck it in as an extra point (God I need the help) saying we weren't given the facts but if it is shown she was negligent and he relied on her advice to his detriment she may be liable.

BillCullen

Strange enough paper today. While it showed that predictions can be pretty much out the door - anyone got any tips for company tomorrow?

Hope study going well for everyone

JCJCJC

mandz wrote: »

Yeah wrote about that myself. God I hope the examiner is in a good mood when they pick up my paper.

Oh did anyone stick in a point that Ellen could possibly be liable for professional negligence? I just stuck it in as an extra point (God I need the help) saying we weren't given the facts but if it is shown she was negligent and he relied on her advice to his detriment she may be liable.

Yes, I saw that angle too and mentioned it, I think it was easily overlooked in all the excitement of the swipe of the handbag. I also said that their relative physiques would come into it - if he was a 95-year-old man and she was a 25-yr old athlete over six feet tall, then the amount of force she used might be considered excessive, did you consider that possibility?

JC

NickDrake

mandz wrote: »

Yeah wrote about that myself. God I hope the examiner is in a good mood when they pick up my paper.

Oh did anyone stick in a point that Ellen could possibly be liable for professional negligence? I just stuck it in as an extra point (God I need the help) saying we weren't given the facts but if it is shown she was negligent and he relied on her advice to his detriment she may be liable.

It said his claim was for his injuries so it wasnt negligent misstatement. Just trespass. There was a good element of self defence on her part though

mandz

No I didn't. All my case law went out of my head and I just said that given the events that had occured it was reasonably foreseeable that she would hit him with her bag. The end of my answer was kinda rushed as I had still two questions to do and it was pushing 11.15. All my prob questions are awful but hoping I'm remembering bad bits. Did you do the occupiers liability question? I stupidly started with this I think had it not been my first question I would have answered it better. I didn't think the old guy could be held liable as he had taken reasonable action to try and alleviate the ice problem as best he could and that William had been a trespasser on his property.

mandz

NickDrake wrote: »

It said his claim was for his injuries so it wasnt negligent misstatement. Just trespass. There was a good element of self defence on her part though

Well the bottom line said to advise Ellen of her potential legal liability in tort law and it is a potential legal liability, had he not succeeded in his claim for injuries which I doubt he would he could take a separate action for professional negligence. Was just a short pointer anyhow for any extra marks I can get

NickDrake

mandz wrote: »

Well the bottom line said to advise Ellen of her potential legal liability in tort law and it is a potential legal liability, had he not succeeded in his claim for injuries which I doubt he would he could take a separate action for professional negligence. Was just a short pointer anyhow for any extra marks I can get

I put a line in on professional negligence but as it was a claim for injuries, I only put in a line. Was he expecting both so or mainly trespass. Talk about trying to catch people out. You couldn't possibly write about trespass and negligence