FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

legallad

Jicked wrote: »

Yeah everyone I heard from seemed to struggle through it. Everything was awkward, like the 205 question on limitations. I ended up doing that and just rattling through my ordinary 205 notes but mentioning how someone was limited in his application at each turn (so in Re Murphs the applicant was limited to situations where more than mere breakdown). There is the Re Via Networks case aswell. Overall my answer was very waffly, but between those cases and mentioning limitations such as winding up/examinership I couldn't see what else he was looking for?

The most annoying part for me was just how well small some of the topics were. Some of the problem questions that i avoided appeared to have a very simple issue which could be described in very quickly without much fuss. Like the problem with part (b) being about a loan to an ex-director...the way the question was phrased seemed to focus on just the narrow issue of saying it was a loan which was prohibited, but a de minimus exception could apply. Not a whole lot to work with for 50% of the marks it seemed! On first glance there seemed to be some more topics like that, such as the one on registration of charges which again i didn't go near.

Ya the s205 question was nasty enough. I mentioned you must be a member and brought in s205 actions for persons not reged who are not members, also the court cant award direct compo but can award indirect through the order for purchase of shares at a certain price, disregard of interests must be suffered in capacity as member, the possibility to award an injuction as a remedy restraining removal from managment is limited etc and then discussed how proving oppression was in itself a burden. All a bit waffely to be honest!

I think this just reaffirms the fact of the unpredictable nature of these exams and its about covering more topics loosely than just few in detail. God i love fe1s, what would i do without them! (have a life perhaps!)

2ndtimer

thanks legaladd

I put down he wasnt a creditor...dam. still cant remember the provision in the act that vitiates consent through duress in disposition. Think parts (b) to (d) were ok...

Tough enough paper compared to oct 2009.

Jicked

legallad wrote: »

Ya the s205 question was nasty enough. I mentioned you must be a member and brought in s205 actions for persons not reged who are not members, also the court cant award direct compo but can award indirect through the order for purchase of shares at a certain price, disregard of interests must be suffered in capacity as member, the possibility to award an injuction as a remedy restraining removal from managment is limited etc and then discussed how proving oppression was in itself a burden. All a bit waffely to be honest!

I think this just reaffirms the fact of the unpredictable nature of these exams and its about covering more topics loosely than just few in detail. God i love fe1s, what would i do without them! (have a life perhaps!)

I did the same, just went through the usual Greenore Trading requirement of it being "burdensome, harsh and wongful", sure that's a limitation in itself right, if not, it is now! I don't know what other type of stuff he'd be looking for from that. I'd say the standard of answers will be down on last years anyway so lets hope the oul bellcurve pushes us above 50% if needs be!

JCJCJC

2ndtimer wrote: »

thanks legaladd

Tough enough paper compared to oct 2009.

There's a widely-held view amongst solicitors at the moment that new entrants need to be cut back sharply, because so many younger solicitors are either unemployed, on short-time working or on recently reduced salaries. They see the only way to achieve this is to harden up the FE1's and have been saying it in the Law Society. If they succeed with that approach, even the traditional hereditary family firms will be obliged to re-recruit unemployed solicitors because favourite son/daughter/niece etc will be stuck in the FE1s. You can see the logic.

JC

2ndtimer

Granted, to be honest I kind of enjoy the challenge of them in some sort of sick way. Old adage though is simply if you cover enough stuff you should not run into problems.

Would like to hear the official law society line on whether they are actively making the Fe-1's more difficult to restict the intake into Blackhall and consequently those searching for training contracts.

I imagine however that such information would not be forthcoming!

Jicked

Well after the standard of the first two that seems a distinct possibility, lets hope next week is a little fairer.

legallad

Jicked wrote: »

Well after the standard of the first two that seems a distinct possibility, lets hope next week is a little fairer.

Il take the two hard ones this week for a nice staright forward eu exam but thats as likely as the law society giving me a bundle of cash!

Also how did people approach the ultra vires question?

JCJCJC

2ndtimer wrote: »

Would like to hear the official law society line on whether they are actively making the Fe-1's more difficult

Well, look what has happened in Land Law. You have a great big MoFu of a new Act, yet the syllabus is framed as if it never existed - all the old stuff still there loud and clear and no mention of the Act. Yet the examiner's report, for those who pay 6 Euro to read it, says you are expected to know the current law. So, do you study all the old obsolete common-law rules scattered in antiquated cases all over the place, or just get to know the new Act? Fair question you would think, yet anyone who rang the Law Society to ask got their heads chewed off for daring to question the powers that be. Wouldn't strike me as a customer-friendly organisation vis-a-vis FE! students.
It doesn't make me feel welcome anyway.

JC

Jicked

I thought the ultra vires one was fairly straightforward, so I mainly just went through my notes on the different express objects (Indpt Obj Clauses, Bell house clauses etc.) then through express and implied powers in cases like Rolled Steel and Parks. Didnt seem to be much of an 'angle' to that question, though I havent looked at it again since 9.30am, bar always sticking in a line at the end of each point about "...and thats so if not covered by a whatever clause, then it will be considered UV and void" to try and tie it in to the question/quote.

Jicked

JCJCJC wrote: »

Well, look what has happened in Land Law. You have a great big MoFu of a new Act, yet the syllabus is framed as if it never existed - all the old stuff still there loud and clear and no mention of the Act. Yet the examiner's report, for those who pay 6 Euro to read it, says you are expected to know the current law. So, do you study all the old obsolete common-law rules scattered in antiquated cases all over the place, or just get to know the new Act? Fair question you would think, yet anyone who rang the Law Society to ask got their heads chewed off for daring to question the powers that be. Wouldn't strike me as a customer-friendly organisation vis-a-vis FE! students.
It doesn't make me feel welcome anyway.

JC

Everything I've heard from current trainees suggests they're just as big a nightmare to deal with once you get the fe1s done. yay!

2ndtimer

JCJCJC wrote: »

Well, look what has happened in Land Law. You have a great big MoFu of a new Act, yet the syllabus is framed as if it never existed - all the old stuff still there loud and clear and no mention of the Act. Yet the examiner's report, for those who pay 6 Euro to read it, says you are expected to know the current law. So, do you study all the old obsolete common-law rules scattered in antiquated cases all over the place, or just get to know the new Act? Fair question you would think, yet anyone who rang the Law Society to ask got their heads chewed off for daring to question the powers that be. Wouldn't strike me as a customer-friendly organisation vis-a-vis FE! students.
It doesn't make me feel welcome anyway.

JC

Im just reading through the explanatory memorandum now....!

goodluck with whatever you have left:D

JCJCJC

Jicked wrote: »

Everything I've heard from current trainees suggests they're just as big a nightmare to deal with once you get the fe1s done. yay!

I asked more than a few solicitors about that land law issue and got the same answer from all - in essence they're difficult to deal with and don't expect common sense from them.

JC

n0_bunny

Jicked wrote: »

I did the same, just went through the usual Greenore Trading requirement of it being "burdensome, harsh and wongful", sure that's a limitation in itself right, if not, it is now! I don't know what other type of stuff he'd be looking for from that. I'd say the standard of answers will be down on last years anyway so lets hope the oul bellcurve pushes us above 50% if needs be!

I approached the question from the "s.205 application must be brought in a situation that falls outside the exceptions to the rule in foss & harbottle/muist be brought for the good of the company" perspective, it never even occurred to me to bring in the "burdensome" criteria...

****ity **** **** ****. Wow, Tort was so obtuse (but in a way rather straightforward, just unexpectedly principles-based paper) and company was grrrrr

if i dont pass it im ****ed, why did i pick the tricky ones to start off on...

Jicked

Yours might have been the right way to approach it, I've no idea about how correct my approach was!

n0_bunny

Haha & i'm too scared to check Courtney's law of private companies at the moment to be make sure. NO sleep the past two nights...

Going into that Company exam I thought I was ready for S 205 question. When I read that one I simply had nothing for it. So didn't do it. All I could think of doing was writing an essay on how the statement was wrong and how the notable feature was that s205 petitions are not limited. Guess I got the whole prep for it mixed up.

layzee

lucilou wrote: »

Everyone going on bout the assualt false imprisonment but the question asked to advise Ellen in relation to her liabiliy as opposed to Philips liability?? Maybe im wrong....constitutional next...where to start??:(

Phew, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that! Yeah the question asked was solely Ellen's liability so I think the assault/false imprisonment aspects were just thrown in as red herrings. I mentioned them briefly obviously to back up Ellen's chances of successfully pleading self-defence but there was no need to go into any real detail on them, right?? Similarly I think the professional negligence aspect was another red herring and really would have had no bearing on the results, there was no detail given.

Ruby83

Would it be a bad idea to leave out consumer protection for contract?? I'm trying to cut down by just this one chapter. Will be covering everything else tho.

Jev/N

Ruby83 wrote: »

Would it be a bad idea to leave out consumer protection for contract?? I'm trying to cut down by just this one chapter. Will be covering everything else tho.

It's something that rarely comes up and while it might come up, I think you're relatively safe leaving it out

pauline.mcc

layzee wrote: »

Phew, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that! Yeah the question asked was solely Ellen's liability so I think the assault/false imprisonment aspects were just thrown in as red herrings. I mentioned them briefly obviously to back up Ellen's chances of successfully pleading self-defence but there was no need to go into any real detail on them, right?? Similarly I think the professional negligence aspect was another red herring and really would have had no bearing on the results, there was no detail given.

You have NO IDEA how happy i am that i read this--- everyone going on about the three trespass torts and her neg- i wrote about a paragragh on it and spent rest talking re her liability!! very happy u guys did same as me. Also, randomly- question 2.... Car accident... what??? Didn't do it cos had no idea what it was asking.
Random, evil paper. Where were the lovely defamation, nuisance, rylands and nervous shock questions?!! Nasty paper in my opinion. Then again, they all are!

tony28

2 exams down and my god are these nasty its so demoralising sitting in there after putting the hours of work in and then knowing that theres a good chance you arent going to pass this by looking at the questions,does any else just think of whats the point in staying if you havent got at four decent questions , god only knows whats coming up for the rest but going by the standard so far theres no real bankers and everthings a possibility- could they now just make them easy

Hogzy

As a matter of interest how many people roughly are turning up for these exams in Dublin. I was in for the Tort exam in Cork and was surprised at the low numbers. Id say there was about 50 people MAX!

I was expecting 300-400 or so

Jicked

tony28 wrote: »

2 exams down and my god are these nasty its so demoralising sitting in there after putting the hours of work in and then knowing that theres a good chance you arent going to pass this by looking at the questions,does any else just think of whats the point in staying if you havent got at four decent questions , god only knows whats coming up for the rest but going by the standard so far theres no real bankers and everthings a possibility- could they now just make them easy

Last October I did a terrible Property paper - 2 good questions, one piece of crap waffley question where I brought in a load of unrelated stuff to pad out the answer, one complete guess, and one bullet point answer of stuff I knew about the topic generally but didn't know any specifics (so I did in bullet point form to make it look like I simply ran out of time ) Somehow I managed to pass with 52%. There's no way I answered over half of that paper correctly, but obviously I got dragged up by some sort of bell curve. So it's not impossible, and if you walk out after your 2 good questions you obviously dont have a chance, its worth sticking around and writing any old crap since you might just get lucky.

JCJCJC

Hogzy wrote: »

As a matter of interest how many people roughly are turning up for these exams in Dublin. I was in for the Tort exam in Cork and was surprised at the low numbers. Id say there was about 50 people MAX!

I was expecting 300-400 or so

Hogzy - there were 130 places set - three blocks of desks 6x5 and one block of 8x5, I counted! (that's what exam stress does!) I thought there was only about 20% empty seats so my guess would be a bit higher than 50 maybe. My friggin' desk had a wobble and my pens and water bottle kept flyin' off, right nuisance ( no pun intended). Trying to get to grips with Contract today, Christ, I'd rather be doing anything else. I've decided I can't cope with EU, I'll write that one off this time and try for Contract and Property this week, I'm reasonably good at those.
JC

Hogzy

JCJCJC wrote: »

Hogzy - there were 130 places set - three blocks of desks 6x5 and one block of 8x5, I counted! (that's what exam stress does!) I thought there was only about 20% empty seats so my guess would be a bit higher than 50 maybe. My friggin' desk had a wobble and my pens and water bottle kept flyin' off, right nuisance ( no pun intended). Trying to get to grips with Contract today, Christ, I'd rather be doing anything else. I've decided I can't cope with EU, I'll write that one off this time and try for Contract and Property this week, I'm reasonably good at those.
JC

130!!! Wow didnt look like it at all. Then again i suppose i only gave it a glance. Its probably because Neptune is so big and the seats are so spaced out that it appears to be less crowded.

JC having a wobble is bad BUT i had a leak dripping on my shoulder, And the rain on thursday was just getting heavier and heavier, Had to move my desk a few inches forward. Still drove me insane as i could hear the dripping behind me. Im going to say it to the invigilators the next day if its raining and im in the same seat. Thank god i was throwing the Tort exam so i was able to cope with it. If i was doing the exam properly i would have given out stink at the outset!

brian__foley

Ruby83 wrote: »

Would it be a bad idea to leave out consumer protection for contract?? I'm trying to cut down by just this one chapter. Will be covering everything else tho.

My view on it is that whereas it has appeared relevant on occasion to part of a question (except back in 2005 where there were entire questions), the amount of "learning" one has to do in relation to relatively dry Statutory Instruments makes the time committment somewhat less than efficient when compared to the time you could spend knowing mistake, frustration, discharge, formation, privity, illegality and void contracts in more detail. I'd say that 95% of the time, the student who put the time they could have put into consumer into, say, reading the LRC recommendations on privity would have been far better rewarded.

It could be on the exam, just like anything could be on the exam, but if you were making choices this late, it would be fairly to say it is one are to be given less priority to others.

I have a pretty dry computer and research based weekend ahead of me - upshot being I'll be at desk most of the time and will keep this board open most of the time if there are any substantive contract related issues people need any guidance on.

Brian

layzee

Anyone have the Griffith tips for equity? (Not that it makes much difference since the exams are ridiculously unpredictable this year!)

Becky55

hey people im doin all 8 but have decided to forget bout constitutional, does anybody know do i still hav to go in to the exam sign my name and wait for 45 mins and then walk or can i just not show up??? any help guys wud be appreciated,

Brian010

Apparently QT injunctions, Secret Trusts and Maxims are slated to come up this year. Given the unpredictability I would try cover as much as possible. DMC came up in the 3 part question last time but I would still cover it as it could be a problem question. Also, Mareva Injunctions were an essay question last time. I would still learn it in case it appears as a problem. I reckon Trusteeship should come up given its recent absence. Charitable and Resulting Trusts as well as Undue Influence and Estoppel usually arise. They all came up last year but at least one of them should appear again. Kind of writing off the top of my head here. Quistclose Trusts and Strong v Bird would be useful for the 3 part question. They are relatively short so you could learn them quickly enough. Finally, I have a sneaking feeling Tracing in a problem question will come up this year. Basically I've cited the whole syllabus lol but I am going to cover these topics. Covering multiple bases is the only approach to passing the FE1s. Two days to learn plus Const and Contract to come. No idea how I am going to learn for those two.....:(

Hogzy

Becky55 wrote: »

hey people im doin all 8 but have decided to forget bout constitutional, does anybody know do i still hav to go in to the exam sign my name and wait for 45 mins and then walk or can i just not show up??? any help guys wud be appreciated,

Dont really know. I was in the same boat as you for Tort but i showed and stayed for the 45mins. In the rule book i got in the post it says you must SIT the exams. And it actually says it in bold so i interpreted it literally as that.
Dont think anyone has an official answer to it, i asked the same Q a week ago but not no definitive answer so i just went in!