FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

jacko1

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm going through the EU past papers here. Thought I had Directive 2004/38/EC pretty well covered and was looking to take a question on it in the exam. Turns out, I was way off, what are all these questions about education maintenance grants about? Something about levels of integration into the Member State to be able to get the same privileges as those there?

If anyone's up to speed on this one I'd really appreciate a list of relevant cases or something so I can get it together

Good luck everyone

we were dealing with this at lectures in Cork a couple of weeks ago.

Main point is to distinguish access to education (Gravier) from access to maintenance grants. The main case dealing with the issue of access to maintenance grants in detail is Bidar (C-209/03)

JCJCJC

coco13 wrote: »

Starting to freak out now.. Any advice re Property anyone??
Whats the least one can cover in the hope/luck of getting five questions.. Just feel like giving up now..Dunno where to start after Succession! Anyone???

Do the new Act and adverse possession anyway I would think. Good luck with it.

JC

newtoat

Looking for good quality 2nd hand versions of these, and exam papers. Good way to recoup outlay cost of courses, perhaps...

coco13

Thanks JC.

randomchild

Have mixed feelings about constitutional today. Paper seemed nice but bottled Q6. a bit. Also could only really answer on Ryan in the case note question and my answer on the Health act was pretty rubbish. Other 3 questions i felt were quite strong though so hopefully I passed.

mollydog

did u do q3

randomchild

Yeah answered on livlihood/statutory instrument. Thought property rights could have been mentioned as well as the question mentioned the price of the trawlers, but I couldn't see how it was relevant.

brian__foley

randomchild wrote: »

Yeah answered on livlihood/statutory instrument. Thought property rights could have been mentioned as well as the question mentioned the price of the trawlers, but I couldn't see how it was relevant.

From what you're describing, that sounds wonderfully like a quite a topical issue hanging around the Courts at the minute. It's not about a ban on drift net fishing is it or something like that? Have not seen the paper yet...

McBee

brian__foley wrote: »

From what you're describing, that sounds wonderfully like a quite a topical issue hanging around the Courts at the minute. It's not about a ban on drift net fishing is it or something like that? Have not seen the paper yet...

Q3 was...

Simon is a fisherman with 25 years experience in the industry. He currently owns two trawlers which he operates out of Killybegs, Co. Donegal. The two trawlers are worth approx €850,000.
In response to concerns over declining fish stock, the Oireachtas passes the Regulation of Fishing Acts 2010. S3 of the Act vests a power in the Min for Fisheries to 'limit the practice of fishing, or any other activity likely to adversely affect fish stocks, for such a period and on such terms and conditions as he deems necessary to preserve such stocks'.
The Min introduces a 7 year ban on any form of fishing in Ireland's portion of the Atlantic Ocean.
This is the area in which Simon has always fished. His view is that it is uneconomic for him to fish anywhere else as the costs involved in travelling to other areas from Killybegs is too high.
You are asked to advise Simon by reference to Irish constitutional law, if there are any grounds upon which he could challenge this measure.

I answered this with regard to delegated legislation (am I right in saying there is not sufficient principles and policies in the Act?) and right to earn a livelihood, the relevance of the amount his gear was worth and his 25 years experience being that this was the only real job prospect he had bla bla.

brian__foley

McBee wrote: »

Q3 was...

Simon is a fisherman with 25 years experience in the industry. He currently owns two trawlers which he operates out of Killybegs, Co. Donegal. The two trawlers are worth approx €850,000.
In response to conerns over devling fish stock, the Oireachtas passes the Regulation of Fishing Acts 2010. S3 of the Act vests a power in the Min for Fisheries to 'limit the practice of fishing, or any other activity likely to adversely affect fish stocks, for such a period and on such terms and conditions as he deems necessary to preserve such stocks'.
The Min introduces a 7 year ban on any form of fishing in Ireland's portion of the Atlantic Ocean.
This is the area in which Simon has always fished. His view is that it is uneconomic for him to fish anywhere else as the costs involved in travelling to other areas from Killybegs is too high.
You are asked to advise Simon by reference to Irish constitutional law, if there are any grounds upon which he could challenge this measure.

I answered this with regard to delegated legislation (am I right in saying there is not sufficient principles and policies in the Act?) and right to earn a livelihood, the relevance of the amount his gear was worth and his 25 years experience being that this was the only real job prospect he had bla bla.

Sounds good. There would be a debate to be had in such a question as to whether the non-delegation doctrine doctrine actually applies - the Minister doesn't appear to have passed an S.I. but rather made a decision pursuant to a vested discretionary power - just like in Casey, so there mightn't be a need to set out principles and policies in such a case.

McBee

brian__foley wrote: »

Sounds good. There would be a debate to be had in such a question as to whether the non-delegation doctrine doctrine actually applies - the Minister doesn't appear to have passed an S.I. but rather made a decision pursuant to a vested discretionary power - just like in Casey, so there mightn't be a need to set out principles and policies in such a case.

Uh-oh!!!!

brian__foley

McBee wrote: »

Uh-oh!!!!

Well, it is "cutting edge" stuff in a sense and credit does go on these exams for engaging with the issues in a sensible and not obviously rote-learned way.

Anyway, there would be a school of thought (mine!) that says its a very odd direction for the law to take and shouldn't really be followed in future. For example, the following would appear caught by 15.2

"The Minister may pass regulations to 'limit the practice of fishing, or any other activity likely to adversely affect fish stocks, for such a period and on such terms and conditions as he deems necessary to preserve such stocks'"

Whereas the following may not

"The Minsiter may 'limit the practice of fishing, or any other activity likely to adversely affect fish stocks, for such a period and on such terms and conditions as he deems necessary to preserve such stocks'"

If the point of Article 15.2 is to preserve integrity in central law-making etc, it seems very formal to permit its embrace to capture the first, but not second scenario.

Mshellster

Very confused regarding the Albazero Exception, the Linden Garden Trust case and just general exception to rule that contracting party can't recover loss on behalf of 3rd party? If someone could explain this area that would be brilliant as I'm lost enough with contract...thanks

brian__foley

Mshellster wrote: »

Very confused regarding the Albazero Exception, the Linden Garden Trust case and just general exception to rule that contracting party can't recover loss on behalf of 3rd party? If someone could explain this area that would be brilliant as I'm lost enough with contract...thanks

John (who has a valid passport) contracts with Travel Centre for a holiday for him and his family. The contract is with him (A) and Travel Centre (B) not his family (C). Assuming that a terrible holiday does damage to A and C and that damage is a breach of contract between A and B. It is not, therefore, a breach of contract between B and C because C was not a party to the contract. Hence, in some cases, the law allows a contracting party to recover losses based on a breach of contract that in fact reflects the losses on non-parties.

This, however, is incredibly limited. It occurs only in the "special" cases like Jackson outlined and also in the entirely unrelated (jurisprudentially) application of Albazero.

Albazero, at its core is about where A contracts with B in relation to property (in the loose sense) but where A and B know well that B will transfer that property to C. Suppose its about delivery - A owns goods which B will ship to C. A agrees to transfer the property of the goods to C once B passes into a particular set of waters. In such a case, if B damages the goods after property has passed, the person with all the contractual rights (A) has suffered no loss (he owns nothing) and the person who has suffered all the loss (C) has no contractual rights against B!

In a nutshell (and this is under sophisticated) Dunlop as applied in Albazero was supposed to deal with that situation (where both parties comtemplate a transfer of property).

The later cases are all about whether this is really the only situation in which one can go beyond Jackson or whether there is a possibility to apply a broader "wider" approach in cases like you mention above.

A few google minutes will yield some material to help you on this, if needed.

mollydog

in relation to the fishersman was the question of compensation relevant. was this required to justify the ministerial action? was the same line of cases relating to CPO's relevant

JCJCJC

brian__foley wrote: »

John (who has a valid passport)

Nice one Brian, topical, topical !!! Is there any Irish case law fresher than Zuphen on frustration of contract, particularly where frustration was successfully pleaded? I've already tried bailii.org and westlaw.ie and there doesn't seem to be, but I'll be guided by your better knowledge. Don't go to any trouble please, just off the top of your head.

Thank you.

JC

Brian010

Does anyone have the topics that came up in the last Contract exam? Also, the essay questions seem much easier than the problems. I wonder does the examiner frown upon you doing 4 essays and 1 problem. A ridiculous suggestion but they must expect a high standard in the essays!

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

Nice one Brian, topical, topical !!! Is there any Irish case law fresher than Zuphen on frustration of contract, particularly where frustration was successfully pleaded? I've already tried bailii.org and westlaw.ie and there doesn't seem to be, but I'll be guided by your better knowledge. Don't go to any trouble please, just off the top of your head.

Thank you.

JC

There are a few (not successful) but the factual backgrounds tend to be complex -

• Ringsend Property v Donatex & McNamara (2009), Kelly J
• Drocarne v Seamus Murphy Properties & Developments (2008), Finlay Geoghegan
• Galway City Council v Samuel Kingston Construction & Hawker (2008) McMahon J

Basically nothing new on the law really, re-statement of Neville etc.

brian__foley

mollydog wrote: »

in relation to the fishersman was the question of compensation relevant. was this required to justify the ministerial action? was the same line of cases relating to CPO's relevant

Depends on whether you think he had a property right - did he?

Brian010

brian__foley wrote: »

Depends on whether you think he had a property right - did he?

I mentioned that he had a licence to fish which could be construed as a property right but that Hempenstall held that licences might not be compensated for as they are revocable by their nature....

brian__foley

Brian010 wrote: »

Does anyone have the topics that came up in the last Contract exam? Also, the essay questions seem much easier than the problems. I wonder does the examiner frown upon you doing 4 essays and 1 problem. A ridiculous suggestion but they must expect a high standard in the essays!

1. Formation / Unilateral Contracts / Statute of Frauds (maybe) / Consideration (i.e. general formation question with consideration a red herring - i.e. consideration is performance for unilateral!)
2. Terms of contract / Misrep / Third party damages
3. Mistake / Frustration
4. Illegality / Conditional Contracts - "subject to" / Implied Terms (Maybe)
5. Estoppel essays in a and b
6(a) Exclusion / Exemption Clauses
6(b) restraint of trade
7. Improvident bargains
8. Damages questions in a and b

brian__foley

Brian010 wrote: »

I mentioned that he had a licence to fish which could be construed as a property right but that Hempenstall held that licences might not be compensated for as they are revocable by their nature....

Sounds like you're thinking then...if you are applying the material like this across yorur exam, you sound like you're on the right track.

legallad

Does anyone know whether the Bupa v VHI case re risk equalisation scheme with regard to art 106 tfeu (ex 86 ec) has been decided? In my manual which is a couple of years old it said the decision is pending and I cant seem to find anything on the net.

Thanks

Brian010

brian__foley wrote: »

Sounds like you're thinking then...if you are applying the material like this across yorur exam, you sound like you're on the right track.

I thought it was a nice question. I didn't mention the S.I issue as I was unaware of it but generally confident with the answer. Thanks for the topics! I have a long night of cramming ahead of me!!

I_hate_FE1s

Is it possible to leave out Criminal Procedure? I have the past papers but only until april 2008. Any links or topic lists for the past exams from then would be a massive help! Thanks in advance. Hope everyone is finding the exams ok.

Hogzy

Anyone do Q4 on todays exam, It was the essay question on the separation of powers?

JCJCJC

brian__foley wrote: »

[*]Galway City Council v Samuel Kingston Construction & Hawker (2008) McMahon J
[/LIST]

Basically nothing new on the law really, re-statement of Neville etc.

Thanks again Brian, there's a useful few paragraphs reciting the law on frustration in the Galway case indeed, also interesting to read the background to the debacle in Eyre Square which was very controversial in Galway at the time, and very interesting to read the courts' attitude to the arbitrator falling asleep several times during the hearings!

JC

tony28

yep i did q 4 attempted to not just throw everything i know about the seperayion of powers down, took it in three parts the first highlighting how it has been useful and what abandonement would mean and the alternatives , the second just showed how even if it is seen as a turf war between organs it is to the benefit of the people to have the correct organs of the state operating their correct powers and thirdly how the courts look to the effect on the individual also, not sure if this was correct but didnt want to go down the route of write all i know and not answer the question.

Also on question 3 i see people talking about a licence but we arent told of any licence , i made the mistake i think of approaching this as a breach of the delegated powers , the fact that the minister banned the fishing as opposed to limiting it pushed me in this direction so i dunno how thats gonna work out

Hogzy

tony28 wrote: »

yep i did q 4 attempted to not just throw everything i know about the seperayion of powers down, took it in three parts the first highlighting how it has been useful and what abandonement would mean and the alternatives , the second just showed how even if it is seen as a turf war between organs it is to the benefit of the people to have the correct organs of the state operating their correct powers and thirdly how the courts look to the effect on the individual also, not sure if this was correct but didnt want to go down the route of write all i know and not answer the question.

Also on question 3 i see people talking about a licence but we arent told of any licence , i made the mistake i think of approaching this as a breach of the delegated powers , the fact that the minister banned the fishing as opposed to limiting it pushed me in this direction so i dunno how thats gonna work out

Good to hear, i did the EXACT same as you, thought it was a good question, didnt do it till the last because i didnt know which essay Q i was going to do. TUrned out to be my strongest question. Im really worried though about my cases. I forgot the names of aload but had the facts and points of law perfect. Apart from q4 my case names were really bad, think i had a total of about 10 named cases in 4 questions, just kept saying "in a previous case" for the rest. Think this might result in a fail for me, First time doing them though so i havnt got a clue?

I was wondering the same myself. There is no mention of any license, Looks like he is just a man with a fishing boat who goes out fishing.

mollydog

same approach for q4. the turf wars were fought to vindicate individual rights. used a few cases from across the topic. think property rights relevant to q3. southern industrial trust car was property.