FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

kel.lynch · 01-10-2014 4:19pm

Are people including Worldwide Mareva Injunctions??

dashdoll · 01-10-2014 4:29pm

kel.lynch wrote: »

Are people including Worldwide Mareva Injunctions??

Just a line or two on them.

dashdoll · 01-10-2014 4:30pm

Wonder is Tracing likely to appear tomorrow?

Seems to be a pattern of it on the Spring paper but it would be a handy qs.

saor19 · 01-10-2014 4:34pm

dashdoll wrote: »

Wonder is Tracing likely to appear tomorrow?

Seems to be a pattern of it on the Spring paper but it would be a handy qs.

I'm in half minds whether to do it or not, it would be a great question but going on the pattern I'm just not sure either!

kel.lynch · 01-10-2014 4:37pm

dashdoll wrote: »

Just a line or two on them.

Okay cool - that was my plan too. Maybe the examiner will be super lovely tomorrow and give a nice little question on maxims...

livelovelaugh · 01-10-2014 4:44pm

I have constitutional on Friday and seriously considering giving up at this point. Have done nothing yet and I think I probably all ready failed at least two so what's the point?! Would I be mad to just get stuck in now and hope for the best?! Serious self-hating going on here!!

dandadub · 01-10-2014 4:45pm

saor19 wrote: »

I'm in half minds whether to do it or not, it would be a great question but going on the pattern I'm just not sure either!

Was thinking the same. I'm leaning towards leaving it out. Risky?

sunshine and showers · 01-10-2014 4:46pm

livelovelaugh wrote: »

I have constitutional on Friday and seriously considering giving up at this point. Have done nothing yet and I think I probably all ready failed at least two so what's the point?! Would I be mad to just get stuck in now and hope for the best?! Serious self-hating going on here!!

What's the point in giving up now? Imagine if you scraped a pass in one of those exams last week and f*cked your chances by skipping exams.

I've found it so hard to get back into this after the weekend. Only started equity today (have some notes, so it's not as bad) and I haven't looked at constitutional yet. That's tomorrow's problem.

We might get lucky yet!

livelovelaugh · 01-10-2014 4:52pm

sunshine and showers wrote: »

What's the point in giving up now? Imagine if you scraped a pass in one of those exams last week and f*cked your chances by skipping exams.

I've found it so hard to get back into this after the weekend. Only started equity today (have some notes, so it's not as bad) and I haven't looked at constitutional yet. That's tomorrow's problem.

We might get lucky yet!

Thanks so much for the encouragement, sunshine and flowers! I'm just tired and motivation is at all time low but know I would be disappointed in myself even more so if I don't power on.

Happy studying and thanks again!

Midlecat · 01-10-2014 4:54pm

livelovelaugh wrote: »

I have constitutional on Friday and seriously considering giving up at this point. Have done nothing yet and I think I probably all ready failed at least two so what's the point?! Would I be mad to just get stuck in now and hope for the best?! Serious self-hating going on here!!

I had decided not to go and now Sky is broke so I have nothing else to do so thinking of doing it maybe. I need to decide asap and get on with it or shut up.

I just opened exam papers there again.. all Gibberish. Was Q2 March 14 Judicial review with a duty to give reasons or Separation of Powers with duty to give reasons? In the report he talks about Q6 but its a typo I think and he refers to a load of new cases which are about the duty to give reasons Mallak and another one meadows..this is not in my manual and in fact I think my manual is C**p.

Could someone clear this up, I initially thought it was judicial review and socio economic but examiner said its not.

FYI for anyone else who has c**p manual

http://www.philiplee.ie/Libraries/Publications/Public_Law_Update_Duty_to_Give_Reasons.sflb.ashx

kel.lynch · 01-10-2014 4:58pm

livelovelaugh wrote: »

I have constitutional on Friday and seriously considering giving up at this point. Have done nothing yet and I think I probably all ready failed at least two so what's the point?! Would I be mad to just get stuck in now and hope for the best?! Serious self-hating going on here!!

You might be surprised how last week went! Its amazing what happens sometimes and how generous the examiners seem to be. Unless you wrote nothing, there's still a chance that you could get by.

Don't give up now - you've come this far!! One more push, have a look-see at the Independent Colleges Night-Before-Exam notes (why why why did I only discover these today?!?) or something similar and give it your best shot. What have you got to lose??

sunshine and showers · 01-10-2014 5:09pm

Midlecat wrote: »

I had decided not to go and now Sky is broke so I have nothing else to do so thinking of doing it maybe. I need to decide asap and get on with it or shut up.

I just opened exam papers there again.. all Gibberish. Was Q2 March 14 Judicial review with a duty to give reasons or Separation of Powers with duty to give reasons? In the report he talks about Q6 but its a typo I think and he refers to a load of new cases which are about the duty to give reasons Mallak and another one meadows..this is not in my manual and in fact I think my manual is C**p.

Could someone clear this up, I initially thought it was judicial review and socio economic but examiner said its not.

FYI for anyone else who has c**p manual

http://www.philiplee.ie/Libraries/Publications/Public_Law_Update_Duty_to_Give_Reasons.sflb.ashx

It is about Judicial Review, but in the sense of the duty of a state body to give reasons for a decision to allow for an application for JR. It's a question of fair procedure. There is a general right to reasons for a decision arising out of the decision in International Fishing Vessels v Minister for the Marine. This is because every act of a state agency is subject to JR.

The SC has stated that a failure to supply an applicant with reasons affects their failure to supply sufficient reasons would affect the applicant’s ‘constitutional right of access to the Courts to have the legality of an administrative decision judicially reviewed could be rendered either pointless or so circumscribed as to be unacceptably ineffective' - Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] 2 I.R. 701

Another useful quote is from Rawson v Minister for Defence [2012]: ‘The courts have consistently held that it is an inherent part of the judicial review role of the courts that parties need to know enough about the process and the decision which affects them to be able to mount a challenge to that decision on the grounds of unlawfulness in an appropriate case’.

Thank Christ I kept my notes from Admin Law last year!

Edit: You may want to note that the Irish position differs from that in England. There is no general obligation for reasons under English law; in fact, they are only required in restricted categories: where the decision is of 'highly regarded interest', where the decision appears aberrant, and as a corollary to a right of statutory appeal.

dashdoll · 01-10-2014 5:09pm

dandadub wrote: »

Was thinking the same. I'm leaning towards leaving it out. Risky?

Il probably have to look at it cos only covering Mareva out of the injunctions so cutting it a bit fine already.

So unprepared...stuck in the Red Cow for the night and all I want to do is hop into the lovely bed and facing into an all nighter...fml!

Bertie1986 · 01-10-2014 5:14pm

dashdoll wrote: »

Il probably have to look at it cos only covering Mareva out of the injunctions so cutting it a bit fine already.

So unprepared...stuck in the Red Cow for the night and all I want to do is hop into the lovely bed and facing into an all nighter...fml!

I feel your pain!! Roll on freedom!

Might be a silly question but does the examiner ever mix topics? I've heard that it's easier to cut a few topics in equity compared to contract or criminal??

I'm only doing Mareva and interlocutory injunctions.

Other than that I'm doing:

Maxims (unlikely but so easy I'd hate if it came up and I hadn't read it)
Specific Performance
Rectification
Rescission
Secret trusts
Express Trusts - 3 certainties, Strong v Bird, Donatio Mortis Causa
Resulting Trusts
Constructive Trusts
Trustees
Tracing

Am I way off or does this sound sensible?

sunshine and showers · 01-10-2014 5:25pm

King Ian wrote: »

Separately I was just looking at the March and April 2014 papers for Equity.

March 2014 - what was Q2 about? I can't quite put my finger on it. Charitable trusts?

Also, how often does Proprietary estoppel feature? I see it was down as a problem in Q8 in April so....

Q2 March 2014 is about Proprietary Estoppel...explicitly..

Midlecat · 01-10-2014 5:25pm

sunshine and showers wrote: »

It is about Judicial Review, but in the sense of the duty of a state body to give reasons for a decision to allow for an application for JR. It's a question of fair procedure. There is a general right to reasons for a decision arising out of the decision in International Fishing Vessels v Minister for the Marine. This is because every act of a state agency is subject to JR.

The SC has stated that a failure to supply an applicant with reasons affects their failure to supply sufficient reasons would affect the applicant’s ‘constitutional right of access to the Courts to have the legality of an administrative decision judicially reviewed could be rendered either pointless or so circumscribed as to be unacceptably ineffective' - Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] 2 I.R. 701

Another useful quote is from Rawson v Minister for Defence [2012]: ‘The courts have consistently held that it is an inherent part of the judicial review role of the courts that parties need to know enough about the process and the decision which affects them to be able to mount a challenge to that decision on the grounds of unlawfulness in an appropriate case’.

Thank Christ I kept my notes from Admin Law last year!

Edit: You may want to note that the Irish position differs from that in England. There is no general obligation for reasons under English law; in fact, they are only required in restricted categories: where the decision is of 'highly regarded interest', where the decision appears aberrant, and as a corollary to a right of statutory appeal.

Thank you very much so helpful. Not that I can't think o/s the box or anything but are any of those in your manual in the event you are using one or have your college notes flagged it? I am looking at mine and there is a tiny paragraph on fair procedure in whats a half page on natural justice at the end of personal rights and that is all with no correlation to Judicial Review although I made the connection myself barely:(

This will be one for March I'd say but at least I'll have it started

sunshine and showers · 01-10-2014 5:28pm

Midlecat wrote: »

Thank you very much so helpful. Not that I can't think o/s the box or anything but are any of those in your manual in the event you are using one or have your college notes flagged it? I am looking at mine and there is a tiny paragraph on fair procedure in whats a half page on natural justice at the end of personal rights and that is all with no correlation to Judicial Review although I made the connection myself barely:(

This will be one for March I'd say but at least I'll have it started

Those are notes from doing Administrative Law in college.

Midlecat · 01-10-2014 5:32pm

King Ian wrote: »

Separately I was just looking at the March and April 2014 papers for Equity.

March 2014 - what was Q2 about? I can't quite put my finger on it. Charitable trusts?

Also, how often does Proprietary estoppel feature? I see it was down as a problem in Q8 in April so....

Exam report as follows for Q2 March 2014;

A considerable number of students who attempted this question provided answers addressing the topic of estoppel in general and not the specific aspects of that topic raised in the two parts of this question. As is always stated in exam reports, students who provide everything they know on the topic without addressing the specific topic addressed cannot hope to gain a pass mark in the question. The unconscionability part of the question was, by and large, answered better, with most students showing a good knowledge of the relevant case law.

Midlecat · 01-10-2014 5:35pm

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Those are notes from doing Administrative Law in college.

Worrying so that it came up as such a substantial area in the question. Oh well we can only do what we can do.

I would be seriously annoyed if I paid for a prep course and that question came up. I can tell from his report a lot of people had my manual lol.

You seem like you have a good grasp so best of luck!

Id get a lot done if I got off here

sunshine and showers · 01-10-2014 5:38pm

King Ian wrote: »

Apologies, I'm going blind. I meant Q2 from October 2013...... that's the one I can't put my finger on.

Also since prop estoppel came up in both march and April you'd have to think its a safe enough bet not to come up this time?

Examiner's Report says that Q2 of October 2013 paper is about determining whether two of the three certainties - certainty of intention and certainty of object - are present.

Bertie1986 · 01-10-2014 5:39pm

King Ian wrote: »

Apologies, I'm going blind. I meant Q2 from October 2013...... that's the one I can't put my finger on.

Also since prop estoppel came up in both march and April you'd have to think its a safe enough bet not to come up this time?

I'm leaving proprietary Estoppel out given that it has come up in the last two sittings and is not mentioned on the grind school's "important topics".

Midlecat · 01-10-2014 5:40pm

King Ian wrote: »

Apologies, I'm going blind. I meant Q2 from October 2013...... that's the one I can't put my finger on.

Also since prop estoppel came up in both march and April you'd have to think its a safe enough bet not to come up this time?

There is no telling what can come up especially given the fact that April was an extra exam.

Three certainties -Intention and objects are you advising someone?

dowistrepla · 01-10-2014 5:57pm

Sorry to drag the tone of this thread down with more talk of not sitting exams, but does anyone know in terms of a getting a traineeship if you just get a cert from the law society saying you passed all 8, or you just give up the separate results from individual sittings? Don't think it would look well if I completely flopped constitutional, on the other hand not sitting it might look even worse if you show your results by sitting.

sunshine and showers · 01-10-2014 6:04pm

King Ian wrote: »

Really? Seems like a strange one. Thanks!

There's definitely a question as to certainty of object and the class of beneficiary of the trust and administrative workability given how broad it is. Although you could discuss the discretionary power given to the trustee as a means of fixing this.

The examiner's report also pointed out that students did not have enough knowledge of the certainty of intention in the context of discretionary trusts and that some students confused the English and Irish tests on the matter. Also, others forgot to address the problems that could arise from the concept of "friend" and how it would be interpreted or proven. If the definition is to broad it could lead to the administrative unworkability I mentioned above.

saor19 · 01-10-2014 6:35pm

dandadub wrote: »

Was thinking the same. I'm leaning towards leaving it out. Risky?

I think I'm just going to do it, got burned by occupiers liability in tort and that feeling is still fresh! Its not a huge topic, I'm thinking 20 minutes of learning!

Mileyt · 01-10-2014 8:59pm

Pepp1989 wrote: »

Ya Mileyt! If you have the info for the two sittings last spring then that would be super!

Hi pep, doesn't appear to have come up. I have to admit I'm not sure what all of the questions are but in the past judicial review/non justibility and courts comes up a lot as a case note

Mileyt · 01-10-2014 9:01pm

kel.lynch wrote: »

Yeah, when I mentioned it to my parents they said the same thing - or else there might have been an issue with the paper, hence why some people weren't allowed to take their exam paper with them. My number was written on the front cover in marker pen and the lady kept looking at only that, the way my book was on the table the pages were curled under each other so you couldn't reach the front pages without lifting the book away, which she never did!

I wonder what the connection with the legislation could have been with cheating and where the tip-off might've come from? The only other explanation I could think of for the book checking was that somebody was given a book that wasn't theirs???

Hmmmm, interesting...!

Imagine issue with paper and they had to pass everyone lol..yeah it was strange .

Bertie1986 · 01-10-2014 9:05pm

Anybody have any tips for pulling an all nighter? I never do it and my bed is calling me, but sooo much to learn. I've prepped for ages and have read everything a few times but don't know a single topic off.

sunshine and showers · 01-10-2014 9:07pm

Bertie1986 wrote: »

Anybody have any tips for pulling an all nighter? I never do it and my bed is calling me, but sooo much to learn. I've prepped for ages and have read everything a few times but don't know a single topic off.

If you've prepped and read for ages, your best bet is to do another hour or two, then get up at 5/6 to cram the info into your brain.

dashdoll · 01-10-2014 9:54pm

sunshine and showers wrote: »

If you've prepped and read for ages, your best bet is to do another hour or two, then get up at 5/6 to cram the info into your brain.

Im totally exhausted too and totally unprepared ..kinda pointless me sitting it at this stage.

Had a coffee and a redbull and still sleepy! I will have a stomach ulcer after these exams! :-(

FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

Comments