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

maya_bb

jenspondolik wrote: »

What's everyone covering for tort or does anyone have tips? Need to get most of it done today

For Tort I left out: breach of statutory duty, liability for defective premises, misc torts, concurrent wrongdoers, fatale injuries and state liability.

Do you have any recent past papers + examiners reports/sample answers for tort, by any chance?

jenspondolik

maya_bb wrote: »

For Tort I left out: breach of statutory duty, liability for defective premises, misc torts, concurrent wrongdoers, fatale injuries and state liability.

Do you have any recent past papers + examiners reports/sample answers for tort, by any chance?

OK so you've a lot covered I'm going to try get done

Neg
Prof neg
Land torts
Vic liab
Occur liab
Animals
Damages
Defam
And hope I'll get lucky pming u there

jenspondolik

maya_bb wrote: »

Hey - I'm a bit confused looking at company, can anyone clarify the difference between agency and single economic entity when lifting the veil of incorporation? They just seem like the same thing to me. But I know the Fyffes case distinguished between the two - I just can't seem to grasp the distinction.

Thanks!



p.s. also, if anyone might be able to share past papers (and if poss sample answers, examiners reports) from 2014 or 2013 for company, tort, constitutional and EU I'd be forever grateful. I have loads from the previous years but they all stop at around 2011 and I'd like to double check that they haven't changed much/ that I can identify the issues in the recent papers. I'd be happy to share anything I can help with in return. Cheers!

My understanding is;

Single Economic Entity is a group of companies which are considered one entity for economic purposes and therefore Cts may pierce the veil if Fyffes criteria ie factual indentification btw acts etc

Agency is where a company or its director is held to be the agent of another company and there is the standard principal agent relationship. The principle can be held liable for the acts of the agent.

Again just my understanding.

add727

Also a bit confused about company!

Could anyone clarify for me the difference between simple ROT clauses and 'all sums due clauses'? My understanding is that for simple ROTs legal title is retained until the good is fully paid for....but the same is also true for 'all sums due'. What's the difference?

Also, I know "all sums due" clauses aren't required to be registered to be effective. However, I note in the examiner's report for Q1, Oct 2011 he says that in relation to ASD clauses and where those goods have been sold on, the clause isn't effective without having being registered. So should you advise that an ASD clause should be registered? It just doesn't say anything in my manual about selling on to third parties....

RCFE15

Hey guys, where can I get the succession act for the property exam and the sale of goods act for the contract exam?

FE1 student

Can anyone help me out with constitutional cases of Laurentiu v Minister for justice and the contrasting case of leontjava. I just am not getting it this evening. Laurentiu I understand primary legislation unconstitutional as had no principles or policies but what in the name of God went on in Leontjava. I must be sitting here 2 hours trying to understand it 😭😭😭

FE1 student

RCFE15 wrote: »

Hey guys, where can I get the succession act for the property exam and the sale of goods act for the contract exam?

Government publications office. Contact them by e mail or phone

S12b

FE1 student wrote: »

Can anyone help me out with constitutional cases of Laurentiu v Minister for justice and the contrasting case of leontjava. I just am not getting it this evening. Laurentiu I understand primary legislation unconstitutional as had no principles or policies but what in the name of God went on in Leontjava. I must be sitting here 2 hours trying to understand it 😭😭😭

I'm going back over my SOP notes tomorrow so I'll explain it then.....it's not the worst to get the head around so don't stress about it.

Arcturus2112

FE1 student wrote: »

Can anyone help me out with constitutional cases of Laurentiu v Minister for justice and the contrasting case of leontjava. I just am not getting it this evening. Laurentiu I understand primary legislation unconstitutional as had no principles or policies but what in the name of God went on in Leontjava. I must be sitting here 2 hours trying to understand it 😭😭😭

Basically two points in Leontjava. First, there was a regulation under the Aliens Act which was ultra vires (it allowed Minister to determine length of stay). Second, there was another article of the regulation which required people to produce documents and the wording enabling it said something like "and any other relevant matters". This was intra vires and permissible as a practical necessity to provide flexibility for changing circumstances, analogous to Maher v Minister for Agriculture in the context of EU instruments and secondary legislation.

Arcturus2112

On Constitutional,

Has anyone who has taken a prep course received any indication at all as to what might be hot topics? Or are there any cases of 2014 that have been mentioned as ones that might be likely for a case note or to form basis of a question? I know there was PP v HSE regarding Right to Die / Rights of Unborn, but that was Dec 2014 and who knows when the exam was prepared.

Bertie1986

Injunctions is huge! Can anyone identify a pattern in the questions asked or have there been any tips from the grind schools? I am considering only learning Mareva injunctions...

Thanks a mill

genuinely55

Bertie1986 wrote: »

Injunctions is huge! Can anyone identify a pattern in the questions asked or have there been any tips from the grind schools? I am considering only learning Mareva injunctions...

Thanks a mill

I would probably say that if you are going to bother learning any of it then you may as well learn it all. I'm skipping it as I don't think the amount you need to know is worth the fact that it's a guaranteed question.

jenspondolik

Arcturus2112 wrote: »

On Constitutional,

Has anyone who has taken a prep course received any indication at all as to what might be hot topics? Or are there any cases of 2014 that have been mentioned as ones that might be likely for a case note or to form basis of a question? I know there was PP v HSE regarding Right to Die / Rights of Unborn, but that was Dec 2014 and who knows when the exam was prepared.

I haven't done one but getting stuck in to it today and tomorrow then thats it until exam.

Kings inns 2014 constitutional syllabus has a list of recent cases under each heading up to mid 2014 i cant put in the link here so just google it - if i have some time ill try look up the cases but ill be doing well to even get basics covered in two days

Mileyt

hi all does anyone know when studying directors is it crucial to do restriction and disq as well just as its pretty long thanks

genuinely55

Mileyt wrote: »

hi all does anyone know when studying directors is it crucial to do restriction and disq as well just as its pretty long thanks

They're separate topics as far as I know. Directors being one and Rest/Disqual being another

dashdoll

Bertie1986 wrote: »

Injunctions is huge! Can anyone identify a pattern in the questions asked or have there been any tips from the grind schools? I am considering only learning Mareva injunctions...

Thanks a mill

I don't know about the prep schools but I am also doing Mareva only. It's simply too much for me to cover otherwise. Covering plenty other topics so should get 5 questions hopefully!

S12b

Mileyt wrote: »

hi all does anyone know when studying directors is it crucial to do restriction and disq as well just as its pretty long thanks

Courtney loves restriction of directors.....asks it a lot and as a separate Q to the general Q on directors. Leaving either out would not be smart....they're both bankers. You can leave disqualification.....hardly ever asked.

genuinely55

S12b wrote: »

Courtney loves restriction of directors.....asks it a lot and as a separate Q to the general Q on directors. Leaving either out would not be smart....they're both bankers. You can leave disqualification.....hardly ever asked.

Any more tips on Company? You seem to know your stuff...

LawCQ91

Can anyone tell me what justicible controversy means in simple words?

S12b

LawCQ91 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what justicible controversy means in simple words?

An issue the courts will consider....if something is non-justiciable, the courts will refuse to look at it e.g the internal workings of the Oireachtas. It's linked to the idea of deference, in certain areas the courts will show great deference to the Oireachtas and simply say that's a matter for them, not us and they will refuse to even hear the case.

Justiciable controversy tends to be used in the context of SOP where another branch of government railroads a "justiciable controversy". It's basically the opposite of what I discussed above, a justiciable controversy is a matter for the courts, not the legislature or executive so if they try to get involved, they would be interfering with a justiciable controversy (matter for the court) and this would be a breach of the SOP.

Does that help at all???

jenspondolik

LawCQ91 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what justicible controversy means in simple words?

in simple terms that i can make out if something is Justicable a court can deal with the dispute. ie a justicable controversy they must be able to resolve the conntrovery between the parties.

if non justicable it is often a political/policy issue that the legislature can deal with and so courts cant/dont interfere. so legislature can reach perhaps a 'constitutional' decision in an area which is non justicable or not for the Judiciary. There is dispute as to whether this 'right' is a claim in law or purely a political claim not in law.

Doherty v govt ireland

“In considering whether any particular controversy is justiciable, the courts take great care to uphold the principle of the separation of powers and to avoid situations where the court goes beyond its own proper own role in the constitutional framework laid down by the Constitution.”

ugh.

S12b

genuinely55 wrote: »

Any more tips on Company? You seem to know your stuff...

Sure, outside of the single most important FE-1 tip of all i.e cover lots of topics so you can answer 5 Q's, one good tip for company is to study the exam reports. Unlike other subjects, his reports are excellent. He will often make a comment along the lines of..."weaker students tended to do......whereas the stronger candidates.....". I always made sure I never made those mistakes and where he credited stronger candidates for understanding a topic well or having recent cases, I always made sure I had those recent cases or knew the topic inside out.

He also tends to ask his questions the same way. I did the exam in October and I don't have my notes with me at the moment but take any typical question and if you go back through the papers you will see he might ask it 3 or 4 ways and just rotate the questions. So go through the variations and make sure you can handle each variation. Go to the reports then to see can you pick up any extra little juicy comments like the ones I mentioned above ie what the stronger candidates did. Make sure anywhere he credits strong candidates, you have that case or knowledge or whatever it was they did to get the credit.

I have waffled on here so I'll try to sum up:
1) he asks Q's the same way so there are patterns to be identified
2) take a topic and go back through the papers as far as you can go
3) identify the various ways he asks that topic
4) make sure you can tackle each variation of the question
5) check his exam reports to make sure you're not making any big mistakes or missing any "strong candidate" points

LawCQ91

Thanks guys for the reply ! I will look at the SOP notes again and see if it makes more sense .. Don't actually know why I am of confused ...

genuinely55

S12b wrote: »

Sure, outside of the single most important FE-1 tip of all i.e cover lots of topics so you can answer 5 Q's, one good tip for company is to study the exam reports. Unlike other subjects, his reports are excellent. He will often make a comment along the lines of..."weaker students tended to do......whereas the stronger candidates.....". I always made sure I never made those mistakes and where he credited stronger candidates for understanding a topic well or having recent cases, I always made sure I had those recent cases or knew the topic inside out.

He also tends to ask his questions the same way. I did the exam in October and I don't have my notes with me at the moment but take any typical question and if you go back through the papers you will see he might ask it 3 or 4 ways and just rotate the questions. So go through the variations and make sure you can handle each variation. Go to the reports then to see can you pick up any extra little juicy comments like the ones I mentioned above ie what the stronger candidates did. Make sure anywhere he credits strong candidates, you have that case or knowledge or whatever it was they did to get the credit.

I have waffled on here so I'll try to sum up:
1) he asks Q's the same way so there are patterns to be identified
2) take a topic and go back through the papers as far as you can go
3) identify the various ways he asks that topic
4) make sure you can tackle each variation of the question
5) check his exam reports to make sure you're not making any big mistakes or missing any "strong candidate" points

Thanks so much!

S12b

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know first hand what sort of grades win the awards for best in country? I remember reading in an EU exam report a comment along the lines "many students performed brilliantly achieving over 60% with one student achieving over 70%". Are they really that low? I would have assumed it would be closer to 80%+....

Arcturus2112

S12b wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know first hand what sort of grades win the awards for best in country? I remember reading in an EU exam report a comment along the lines "many students performed brilliantly achieving over 60% with one student achieving over 70%". Are they really that low? I would have assumed it would be closer to 80%+....

Perhaps you are somebody who hasn't done a law undergrad. Generally speaking, in law exams a 70-75% result roughly equates to 100%. It would be odd to see marks beyond that.

jenspondolik

Arcturus2112 wrote: »

Perhaps you are somebody who hasn't done a law undergrad. Generally speaking, in law exams a 70-75% result roughly equates to 100%. It would be odd to see marks beyond that.

I did three questions in last exam and passed with a 50 which meant they def must give over 70% or they made a mistake in which case i got v lucky.

Arcturus2112

jenspondolik wrote: »

I did three questions in last exam and passed with a 50 which meant they def must give over 70% or they made a mistake in which case i got v lucky.

Nice! May I ask which subject?

jenspondolik

Arcturus2112 wrote: »

Nice! May I ask which subject?

contract.

S12b

Arcturus2112 wrote: »

Perhaps you are somebody who hasn't done a law undergrad. Generally speaking, in law exams a 70-75% result roughly equates to 100%. It would be odd to see marks beyond that.

I did a law undergrad alright, spent four years busting a nut trying to get an A1 in a law exam....never quite managed it!!

Ya I guess, 70-75% would be an excellent grade.....65% is the best I managed so far and in typical FE-1 fashion, it was in an exam I wasn't particularly happy with....nice to know I'm not a million miles away.