FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

2ndtimer

Does anyone know where in my Griffith manual I should be looking for info regarding same sex couples...? left this so late.

Also any case names be a help.

cheers guys

legallad

2ndtimer wrote: »

you are nearly right there, just slightly muddled.

Two of the qualifications of being considered an internal tax are if the chargable event takes place at the same time and same marketing stage- Co frutta

For example, hypothetically; irish beer and german beer are both charged Duty when they are sold to wholesalers. The criteria is met.

If German beer was charged when it was landed in Ireland it would be at a different time. The Irish beer would therefore enjoy an advantage by being able to be stored longer etc without attaching the charge until it was sold on to wholesalers. You can see that the chargable event is different and will not be saved by the art 110 TFEU (art 90 EC) saver

Marketing stage I am going to put my hands up and say im not 100% sure, so other input welcome. However I would imagine that this refers to stage of production and availability for sale rather than anything related to product lifecycle.

For example consider beef, if all beef packed and ready to purchase in supermarket was charged only when on sale to public then marketing stage is the same. If foreign beef, in its unbutchered state ( i.e carcass with meat) is charged on import this would amount to a charge equivalent to excise duty and in breach of art 30 TFEU (25 EC).

The criteria to meet the internal tax saver in the former art 90 was discussed in Denkavit and CSN v UK.

2nd timer im going to pick your brains for a few minutes because you seem to be fairly clued in on this topic. Im having difficulty distinguishing between an internal tax and charge having equiv effect to customs duty.

I thought the concept was straightforward but having read the examiner reports for some questions it has entirley confused me. Ok so how exactly does one distinguish the two? Say i apply the denkavit criteria will it then come under the def of internal tax? The examiner has frequently spoken of the confusion amoung students in this area hence im not sure is it as simple as just fulfiling the denkavit criteria.

2ndtimer

legallad wrote: »

2nd timer im going to pick your brains for a few minutes because you seem to be fairly clued in on this topic. Im having difficulty distinguishing between an internal tax and charge having equiv effect to customs duty.

I thought the concept was straightforward but having read the examiner reports for some questions it has entirley confused me. Ok so how exactly does one distinguish the two? Say i apply the denkavit criteria will it then come under the def of internal tax? The examiner has frequently spoken of the confusion amoung students in this area hence im not sure is it as simple as just fulfiling the denkavit criteria.

Ok, ill qualify this first as im studying for constitutional at the minute and dont have my EU materials with me so this is all from memory.

Charges equivalent to excise duty are unlawful and may not be qualified in anyway; they are relevant to imports.

However, a charge may be considered an internal tax if applied to domestic and non domestic products subject to applying the four Denkavit criteria.

It must have the same effect on both products- Vissenjbedrif DJ. This is the central thing to focus on when you are trying to work it out. If we take the other stance and see that the charge is only effecting the imported good it is??? Charge equivalent to excise duty and unlawful under art 30 TFEU (25 EC).

Same effect + all Denkavit criteria = saved under 110 TFEU (90 EC)

Different and discriminatory= breach of Art 30 TFEU (25 EC)

Important to remember also in the context of putting a charge on a good that a country does not produce one may feel this is a CEE..however subject to the Co-frutta ruling this was considered being saved and therfore valid under the then as it was art 90 on internal taxation. In this case Italy had a consumption tax on certain fruits (19 I believe) and bananas was included in this. Obviously Italy isnt produce bananas and applicant sought it to be a breach of then art 25 and a CEE. However it was considered to be within a class of products objectively viewd to be able to be taxed and therefore valid under art 90 and not therefore a CEE under art 25.

Finally, if all taxes collected benefit solely a national product; eg tax on apples benefiting the Irish apple board this will be breach of art 30 TFEU (25 EC).

If otherwise..eg 40% of revenue goes to Irish apple board this will fall under art 110 TFEU (90 EC) and will no doubt lead to a finding if discrimainatory taxation.

Further to what you say about believing I am well up on this topic, I learnt this for first time last week and really just committed it to memory. Should it come up in the exam ( and I would therefore be fortunate) I would more than likely be in a position to answer it well. my abstract point is the some times fallacy of these exams. I couldnt tell you any information now really about the ones I passed last sitting! suppose they have to test somehow.

Im from the north and only recently looked at their entrance exam. Talk about a doddle compared to this; five page story, various issues tort, contract, criminal and then 80 multiple choice tick the box of who is the proper plaintiff plus a relatively simple numeracy exam!

anyway rant over..good luck in whatever you have left

PS- good explanatory link here

randomchild

2ndtimer wrote: »

Does anyone know where in my Griffith manual I should be looking for info regarding same sex couples...? left this so late.

Also any case names be a help.

cheers guys

Zappone and Gilligan v Revenue Commissioners is the only one that comes to mind.

2ndtimer

randomchild wrote: »

Zappone and Gilligan v Revenue Commissioners is the only one that comes to mind.

Thanks found the relevant section in the manual from that case.:)

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

Subject to considerable improvement by Dr. Brian Foley BL and others no doubt:
Interlocutory simply means both sides are in court, as against ex-parte when only one side applies for an injunction. For example, if you heard that a radio station was about to air a show that defamed you in the coming week, you could make an ex-parte application immediately to the court to halt them. The court might give you an order* for a short time, days or even hours. You serve your order on the other side, and then an interlocutory hearing takes place. They appear normally with representation and the two of you make your arguments. If the injunction is upheld, it's then an interlocutory injunction because both sides were heard. It stays in place pending the full hearing of the action. If the court orders a permanent stay on the broadcast at the hearing, that's your perpetual injunction.
Interlocutory refers to the hearing, prepetual refers to the duration of the final decision.

Hope that helps.

*subject to the usual tests in equity - fair issue to be tried (established by your grounding affidavit), undertaking as to costs, damages not an appropriate remedy, equitable principles - clean hands, he who seeks equity must do equity etc.

I'm sure Brian will express that in much better language!

JC

Err...you obviously didn't sit near me at matches during Staunton's reign...I was less than "eloquent" in my views.

The above is close enough, but I'd be careful (as a matter of terminology) not to equate an interlocutory application with an application which isn't ex parte. The term "interlocutory" when applied to an application simply refers to the timing when an application is made in the grand scheme of the case - i.e. between the appearance and the ultimate close of pleadings. Certainly an injunction can be obtained on an interim basis which is usually obtained by an ex parte application, so you're pretty accurate in the description of how these things pan out, but subject to this little tweaking.

brian__foley

2ndtimer wrote: »

Does anyone know where in my Griffith manual I should be looking for info regarding same sex couples...? left this so late.

Also any case names be a help.

cheers guys

Zappone
McD v L

You could think about how this may inter-related (as in McD) with the de facto family material and the exclusive recognition of marriage as the basis of the constitutionally protected family - i.e. same-sex couples get the double "whammy" (a) you can't marry and (b) as a result your families will never be constitutionally protected "families".

SC decision in Cash (unconstitutionally obtained evidence) was also handed down recently. Didn't deal with Charleton's points raised in the HC as the Court decided the O'Brien principles only apply to evidence lead at trial rather than evidence which have lead the police to form a belief grounding an arrest. Interesting view of 38.1 given the Mahon decisions.

2ndtimer

brian__foley wrote: »

Zappone
McD v L

You could think about how this may inter-related (as in McD) with the de facto family material and the exclusive recognition of marriage as the basis of the constitutionally protected family - i.e. same-sex couples get the double "whammy" (a) you can't marry and (b) as a result your families will never be constitutionally protected "families".

SC decision in Cash (unconstitutionally obtained evidence) was also handed down recently. Didn't deal with Charleton's points raised in the HC as the Court decided the O'Brien principles only apply to evidence lead at trial rather than evidence which have lead the police to form a belief grounding an arrest. Interesting view of 38.1 given the Mahon decisions.

Good man Brian...hope you're not a Liverpool man

brian__foley

2ndtimer wrote: »

Good man Brian...hope you're not a Liverpool man

Lord no.

JCJCJC

brian__foley wrote: »

Err...you obviously didn't sit near me at matches during Staunton's reign...I was less than "eloquent" in my views.

Brian - you'll almost certainly never meet me at a match - I only enjoy sports with either four pistons or four legs involved! Thanks for the remarks.

JC

32minutes

re constitution, i think the major problem im having is identification and then addressing the specific question looking at previous papers.

so with this in mind can anyone say for certain exactly what was being looked for in Q6 in october 2009 ? i thought it was property rights but in the reports Q7 was stated as property rights Q.

I really do think its on the inconsiderate side of things for the examiner not to give some address to each question in the reports, especially given the often mixed nature of the questions and how each could be interpreted...

radioface

Hi guys,

Just trying to get my head around Re Stead. I'm clear on it as far as fully secret trusts go (I hope!!), but in the context of tenants in common, will a trustee under a half secret trust always be deemed to have notice of the trust obligation (as it is referred to on the face of the will) even though they had no notice of it during the lifetime of the testator? i.e. is it the case that a half secret trustee can never take beneficially?

It seems to have come up a few times in problem questions so just having a minor panic attack! Any help graciously received!

Amigone

Hi, can anyone briefly summarize the effect of the monica leech decision on defamation re const law?? Iv the judgment here but can't make head nor tail out of what the ratio is!

Hogzy

32minutes wrote: »

so with this in mind can anyone say for certain exactly what was being looked for in Q6 in october 2009 ? i thought it was property rights but in the reports Q7 was stated as property rights Q.

Id say its a misprint because Q6 definetly deals with property rights (Limiting the use of ones property and compensation)

32minutes wrote: »

I really do think its on the inconsiderate side of things for the examiner not to give some address to each question in the reports, especially given the often mixed nature of the questions and how each could be interpreted...

Couldnt agree more. Then again it is the law society, Theyre not the most considerate of folk. You would swear that they didnt want anyone at all doing the FE-1's and wanted to keep it an invite only club or something. Its very Cigars and SHerry if you ask me

llll

radioface wrote: »

Hi guys,

Just trying to get my head around Re Stead. I'm clear on it as far as fully secret trusts go (I hope!!), but in the context of tenants in common, will a trustee under a half secret trust always be deemed to have notice of the trust obligation (as it is referred to on the face of the will) even though they had no notice of it during the lifetime of the testator? i.e. is it the case that a half secret trustee can never take beneficially?

It seems to have come up a few times in problem questions so just having a minor panic attack! Any help graciously received!

Relying on Re Stead (Farwell J.'s comments) and Re Brown, there is authority for the fact that there should be no difference in Irish law between the rules for half-secret and fully secret trusts.

So, as fully secret and half-secret trusts are the to be treated the same before Irish courts, we can then rely on Re Stead in the context of half -secret trusts to tenants-in-common: only those aware of the testator's intention are bound by it, that is, only those tenants-in-common to whom the testator's intentions were communicated and those who accepted it during his lifetime are bound by the trust.

For the purposes of advising a client in a problem style question, it's also useful to note Geddis v. Semple where Walker J. held if a testator was induced into making a gift by the promise of a co-tenant (that they would abide by his wishes), then the other innocent tenant-in-common (who knew nothing of promise) may be bound.

So, I think (and I could be wrong) that:
A trustee named on the face of the will is not deemed to have notice of the trust obligation. The testator must make his intention known to them and they must accept in order to be bound

I hope this answers your question!

2ndtimer

32minutes wrote: »

re constitution, i think the major problem im having is identification and then addressing the specific question looking at previous papers.

so with this in mind can anyone say for certain exactly what was being looked for in Q6 in october 2009 ? i thought it was property rights but in the reports Q7 was stated as property rights Q.

I really do think its on the inconsiderate side of things for the examiner not to give some address to each question in the reports, especially given the often mixed nature of the questions and how each could be interpreted...

Hi,

Q6 does have a property element to it in that it infringes Caoimhes constitutional right to private property and indeed to earn a livelihood.

However the crux of the question is a delegated legislation issue under 15.2.1 and 15.2.2; namely whether the discretion granted to the minister by the legislation is a prima facie constitutional delegation of power,

and whether the legislation itself and the way the minister acts are a disproportionate infringment of property rights and to earn a livilihood-

all the usual case; cityview press v anco, Harvey v min for social welfare, cooke v walsh, Mc daid v Sheehy.

Hope that helps

Hogzy

Apologies, I stand corrected! As a matter of interest if i focused all my question on property rights would i have failed the question. Brian Foley might be able to answer this Q?

brian__foley

Amigone wrote: »

Hi, can anyone briefly summarize the effect of the monica leech decision on defamation re const law?? Iv the judgment here but can't make head nor tail out of what the ratio is!

See here from cearta.ie around the time.

Bottom line is that public interest defence exists in Ireland, probably modelled loosely on Reynolds but without the rigidity that Reynolds came to attract in the UK. The article explains all.

brian__foley

Hogzy wrote: »

Apologies, I stand corrected! As a matter of interest if i focused all my question on property rights would i have failed the question. Brian Foley might be able to answer this Q?

Question 6 and 7 of that year do confuse people. The examiner referred to property rights as an "element" of question 7 when, on my view, it would look more like a right to earn a livlihood question and thus I find it somewhat confusing that he would refer to cases like Clinton in the report. I reallly do, however, read that report as more a comment about those people who choose to talk about property for Question 7, but who were very out of date in their understanding of the case-law. I would have viewed Question 6 as primarily about the non-delegation doctrine but would have viewed property rights as fair game to be discussed in that question.

I_hate_FE1s

What are the core areas of Criminal Law? Startin to panic.....:o

randomchild

Yo just one more quick, probably stupid question question (cheers for the advice on the injunction one). On the letter I received from the law society it says I have to bring the letter confirming my examination number. On the letter that they put this on is my candidate number. Is this the same letter or am I missing something?

Beeinmybonnet

randomchild wrote: »

Yo just one more quick, probably stupid question question (cheers for the advice on the injunction one). On the letter I received from the law society it says I have to bring the letter confirming my examination number. On the letter that they put this on is my candidate number. Is this the same letter or am I missing something?

Same thing. Don't forget ID too.

randomchild

Thanks, one less thing to be worrying about on the way in:).

McLawin

I_hate_FE1s wrote: »

What are the core areas of Criminal Law? Startin to panic.....:o

Very little to leave out of criminal since it's a course that lends itself to blending multiple issues from across all areas of the course in questions. Sorry that seems really unhelpful. It's usually a good idea to have a look at the law reform commission's latest reports and consultation papers, e.g. recent report on defences in criminal law.

If anyone has any other ideas or tips about the criminal paper, I'd love to hear them too

Hogzy

Guys i know the letter says you can only hand in your legislative sources between 9 and 12 but does anyone know if these are strictly adhered to in Cork, Have a lot of skimming over to do for Constitutional tomorrow and would like to hand my Constitution and EU Legislation in as early as possible!! Has anyone handed there stuff in earlier than 9?

Beeinmybonnet

Hogzy wrote: »

Guys i know the letter says you can only hand in your legislative sources between 9 and 12 but does anyone know if these are strictly adhered to in Cork, Have a lot of skimming over to do for Constitutional tomorrow and would like to hand my Constitution and EU Legislation in as early as possible!! Has anyone handed there stuff in earlier than 9?

I think you can hand them in as long as the invigilators are there to accept them - I know I've definitely handed stuff in before 9 in the past. The exam venues are usually open very early as far as I remember.

Beeinmybonnet

I'm seriously starting to panic about Constitutional, the course is vast and am getting confused as to what to focus on at this stage. Has anyone any tips??

Ruby83

Beeinmybonnet wrote: »

I think you can hand them in as long as the invigilators are there to accept them - I know I've definitely handed stuff in before 9 in the past. The exam venues are usually open very early as far as I remember.

When I was hanging around for tort last thursday, I was in the exam hall (neptune) at about 8 and people were dropping in legislation etc then. It seemed like the invigilators had been there for a good as well so I'd say there's no prob handing them in early

JCJCJC

Ruby83 wrote: »

When I was hanging around for tort last thursday, I was in the exam hall (neptune) at about 8 and people were dropping in legislation etc then. It seemed like the invigilators had been there for a good as well so I'd say there's no prob handing them in early

Agreed. I was there about twenty to nine same day and I handed in my SoG Acts for next week, no problem, nice friendly lady. I'll be handing in the Blackstones on wednesday, at this stage I couldn't care less if I never see it again ;-)

JC

Jicked

Ugh, looking at the EU papers is just depressing, I find the problem questions really difficult.

Here's one; there was a problem question years ago basically to do with the X-Case; woman wants to leave her Member State where abortion is illegal to get an abortion in a neighbouring MS. Is that just a freedom to provide services question (i.e. she can avail of a service once there's remuneration of some kind, a cross border element and it's not a completely unlawful act across the EU) or is it a freedom of movement question (which I seem to have precious little notes/case law for for some reason )