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

Arcturus2112

Does anyone know the name of the recent Supreme Court case that overturned a drink-driving conviction where the accused had been restrained in handcuffs unnecessarily? It might arise in a 38.1 question in constitutional but I can't recall the name

LawCQ91

Arcturus2112 wrote: »

Does anyone know the name of the recent Supreme Court case that overturned a drink-driving conviction where the accused had been restrained in handcuffs unnecessarily? It might arise in a 38.1 question in constitutional but I can't recall the name

Dpp v Cullen ! Although i think that case was decided without consider the constituional issue though, I could be wrong!

Arcturus2112

LawCQ91 wrote: »

Dpp v Cullen ! Although i think that case was decided without consider the constituional issue though, I could be wrong!

That's it! Many thanks

Troels Hartmann

Best of luck to all in Company tomorrow! (Today!)

missindigo123

Any idea what to leave out in tort? Hate tort!!!!!
Have Vicarious Liability, Trespass to person & property covered, passing off, defamation, Development of the duty of care essay, negligence

nkfe1

Would anybody be able to help me out of a hole and send me on a sample answer for Proprietory Estoppel for Equity? Thanks so much in advance!

makemecrazy

Hey all could anyone please please share what came up in the 8 questions for both Criminal law and the Company Law exam papers please?

LawCQ91

Quick Q for constitutional

Can anyone clarify re: removing medical treatment.

Say a person in re: a ward of court situation. Family members can apply remove artificial life prolong treatment for their family member? Even though the person in qeustion is in vegetative state and not able to give consent?

missindigo123

LawCQ91 wrote: »

Quick Q for constitutional

Can anyone clarify re: removing medical treatment.

Say a person in re: a ward of court situation. Family members can apply remove artificial life prolong treatment for their family member? Even though the person in qeustion is in vegetative state and not able to give consent?

Yes, you can apply to have medical treatment withdrawn where there is no curative effect. If there is a curative effect to the medication, can't remove it unless the hospital get the consent of an adult capable of making a decision.
Court had a lot of empathy in re ward because she could have been in pain but had no way of telling them etc.

Does that help?!

LawCQ91

missindigo123 wrote: »

Yes, you can apply to have medical treatment withdrawn where there is no curative effect. If there is a curative effect to the medication, can't remove it unless the hospital get the consent of an adult capable of making a decision.
Court had a lot of empathy in re ward because she could have been in pain but had no way of telling them etc.

Does that help?!

Perfect! That really clears it up

S12b

In Re a Ward of Court - right to life includes right to die naturally. So it would be ok to switch off life support that was keeping a terminally ill person alive artificially but it is not ok to accelerate the process of death.

Troels Hartmann

Just out of Company!

1. Essay on SLP and Salomon (identical to last October...)

2. Essay on defences to a s.150 restriction

3. Minority protection - s205 with a bit of a Foss v Harbottle element (I think)

4. Problem on directors duties

5. Essay on Meetings, shareholder approval etc

6. Problem on restriction (?) and holding director liable for losses? I wasn't really sure

7. Problem on fraudulent preference and realisation of assets in liquidation

8. Essay on retention of title clauses (same as last October!)

I did 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 and think I got solid enough answers. I'd say people would have been thrown by the repetition of the two essays from last October but (thank God) I had the Salomon one more or less prepared so I got a semi-decent answer on it

Glad that's over

mirm

Troels Hartmann wrote: »

Just out of Company!

1. Essay on SLP and Salomon (identical to last October...)

2. Essay on defences to a s.150 restriction

3. Minority protection - s205 with a bit of a Foss v Harbottle element (I think)

4. Problem on directors duties

5. Essay on Meetings, shareholder approval etc

6. Problem on restriction (?) and holding director liable for losses? I wasn't really sure

7. Problem on fraudulent preference and realisation of assets in liquidation

8. Essay on retention of title clauses (same as last October!)

I did 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 and think I got solid enough answers. I'd say people would have been thrown by the repetition of the two essays from last October but (thank God) I had the Salomon one more or less prepared so I got a semi-decent answer on it

Glad that's over

Q6 I did fraudulent/reckless trading wit a bit of failure to keep proper books and records and mentioned the loan to the director, I never mentioned restriction! Now I don't feel so positive

jenspondolik

mirm wrote: »

Q6 I did fraudulent/reckless trading wit a bit of failure to keep proper books and records and mentioned the loan to the director, I never mentioned restriction! Now I don't feel so positive

I got thrown by two identical questions also and for that reason I was vague

I did SLP
restriction essay
Really bad dispositions had cases but vague on what they said
Rots essay only what I'd remembered since sept thought book debts would come up and time issue
Really bad Ill applied minority with a line about Foss and s213 ran out of time.

Can someone help for tort what to do?

jenspondolik

jenspondolik wrote: »

I think in new rules its just three. Can u pull an alnighter and cover ones that used to come up regularly though not sure if this sitting will be the usual. Did you sit it before? Ive tort and constitutional after company and I'll prob get 6 hrs sleep in three days as nothing done but its worth a shot?. You could cover
directors
restriction
Borrowings
SLP;
minority
borrowings
six topics and you could get dog lucky. If you gave an hour each you'd be up til 12 and get up at six then for three more hrs revision and you won't have lost much. Last sitting I passed contract with 3 qs and half a day study in sept (had read it last march and like u focused on three and didnt do it just signed in) and failed company with 3 Q's in sept so these exams are strange you don't know what you'll pass til you get results letter. If you've any bit done at all or even did company at all go in and write like the clappers. I've learned my lesson from abstaining from exams and wishing I'd done them after

Ha ha i predicted and didnt revise borrowings or slp

FoxReal

Troels Hartmann wrote: »

Just out of Company!

1. Essay on SLP and Salomon (identical to last October...)

2. Essay on defences to a s.150 restriction

3. Minority protection - s205 with a bit of a Foss v Harbottle element (I think)

4. Problem on directors duties

5. Essay on Meetings, shareholder approval etc

6. Problem on restriction (?) and holding director liable for losses? I wasn't really sure

7. Problem on fraudulent preference and realisation of assets in liquidation

8. Essay on retention of title clauses (same as last October!)

I did 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 and think I got solid enough answers. I'd say people would have been thrown by the repetition of the two essays from last October but (thank God) I had the Salomon one more or less prepared so I got a semi-decent answer on it

Glad that's over

What did you write for part a, b, c and d for Q7?

a) I said he could keep the wages because they weren't given to him with the intention to defraud anyone. I think McBernie case says that employees have a right to ages ahead of creditors.

b) that the transfer seems to lack fraudulent preference so was probably ok and was done before winding up.

c) I said that this could be a deposition and was done after winding up so probably void. I gave Ashmark, when it comes to cashing a cheque, as an example, only now to relise that Ashmark says that interest on an overdraft is not a disposition.

d) Without much of a clue what to write, I said that that it's the liquidators role to pay the funds to whichever creditor is due them. If the landlord was due the funds here then the transaction should be ok. (Really didn't know what to write for that one)

Did you say something similar or am I was off?

add727

FoxReal wrote: »

What did you write for part a, b, c and d for Q7?

a) I said he could keep the wages because they weren't given to him with the intention to defraud anyone. I think McBernie case says that employees have a right to ages ahead of creditors.

b) that the transfer seems to lack fraudulent preference so was probably ok and was done before winding up.

c) I said that this could be a deposition and was done after winding up so probably void. I gave Ashmark, when it comes to cashing a cheque, as an example, only now to relise that Ashmark says that interest on an overdraft is not a disposition.

d) Without much of a clue what to write, I said that that it's the liquidators role to pay the funds to whichever creditor is due them. If the landlord was due the funds here then the transaction should be ok. (Really didn't know what to write for that one)

Did you say something similar or am I was off?

That was my 5th Q. Shocking. Didn't know the area at all, was so stuck. Vaguely said approx that, but in about a sentence each as of course only left myself 15mins. Def didn't pass the Q but please god I got a handful of marks, and my other incredibly average answers got me over the line!

FoxReal

add727 wrote: »

That was my 5th Q. Shocking. Didn't know the area at all, was so stuck. Vaguely said approx that, but in about a sentence each as of course only left myself 15mins. Def didn't pass the Q but please god I got a handful of marks, and my other incredibly average answers got me over the line!

Hahah, pretty much the exact same way I feel about it. Fingers crossed.

Legalseagull

Could someone offer a definition of presumptive invalidity in relation at Equality in constitutional? I think I'm getting it right but can't seem to nail it down in a few sentences! Appreciated.

missindigo123

Can anyone tell me if I'm right or wrong with this for Vicarious liability in tort.
There must be a relationship Atkin to that of employer / employee - courts will use the control test traditionally used however the courts also have consideration for factors such as the integration into the business and the payment of wages etc.

Then the second thing is that the employee had to be acting within the scope of his employment when the all edged wrongdoing took place. The courts have two tests that they use for this,
- implied authority test
- close connection test

They use them interchangeably and without any real justification for why.
The implied authority test is the more limited of the two and relates to acts which the employee could have considered to be delegated to him / acts he was authorised to do. Employer won't be liable for an intentional wrong such as in Lawlor where the lorry driver kidnapped a girl during work or in Farry where the employee restrained someone at a train station to get their ticket from them - liable here as thought he would be required do so whatever to get the ticket.

Then the second test, close-connection test, more like the real workplace. Where the act done is something which can be considered to be part of the job or is reasonably incidental to it then it will be considered as part of the course of employment - regardless of whether or not the employee was allowed to do it. Eg. In Poland, his plaintiffs hand as he believed that he was acting stealing - employer vicarious liable here.

Even where expressly prohibited from doing an act - he may be held to be VL. In Iqbal - a bus conductor was not VL where a bus conductor moved a bus because his job was to collect tickets not drive buses compared with Limpis where a bus driver raced a bus down road - VL.

In te context of intentional wrongs such as abuse or assault, the Employer won't be held to be VL where the act is considered beyond the scope of the employees authority as it would be unfair to impose liability on the employer where the employee had deliberately acted against his employers wishes.
Daniels - bouncer chased him down street - liable for this but not for the bouncer fracturing his skull.

Mohamud v. Morrison - followed customer to car park, racist attack etc not liable just because his job was to work with customers not enough to connect that and the attack

Abuse cases - liability won't be founded.

UK - lister case - Bazley - canada both found employers of school wardens in boarding schools VL for sexual assault
In Doe - church held VL

In Ireland - Delahunty v SEHB. not VL as the person abused was a visitor to the school

O'keeffee v hickey - Harriman J rejected close connection test + canadian approach but Fennelly J approved it and said criminal acts shouldn't be excluded and may even be automatically imposed...

So do we or don't we impose liability for sexual assaults?!

Arcturus2112

Legalseagull wrote: »

Could someone offer a definition of presumptive invalidity in relation at Equality in constitutional? I think I'm getting it right but can't seem to nail it down in a few sentences! Appreciated.

Re Art 26 Employment Equality Bill is my only reference point on this, where the SC recognised some categories where discrimination would be presumptively invalid, such as gender, sexuality, political or religious persuasion, unless there is a legitimate legislative purpose. But they omitted age as a category. So one can infer that they will show some deference in cases of ageism, broadly similar to the approach in Keady v Garda Commissioner in the context of disciplinary procedures (I think there was a past question about pilot licences and strict age requirements - that's an example of where ageism may be justified).

Regarding a legitimate legislative purpose, then, Blascaoid Mor Teoranta was not a legitimate legislative purpose, neither was de Burca v AG. Contrast MD v Ireland, which was.

LawCQ91

Legalseagull wrote: »

Could someone offer a definition of presumptive invalidity in relation at Equality in constitutional? I think I'm getting it right but can't seem to nail it down in a few sentences! Appreciated.

My understanding:
I think it simply means the state has to prove the legislation is justified rather than the plaintiff to show its unjustified. Re:26 says sex/religion etc automatically' presumes' the state has to prove. Ie. Its justified under difference in capacity etc

S12b

Legalseagull wrote: »

Could someone offer a definition of presumptive invalidity in relation at Equality in constitutional? I think I'm getting it right but can't seem to nail it down in a few sentences! Appreciated.

In very simple non-legal terms, if the legislation is particularly dodgy (discriminating on sex, race, religion), the courts will presume it is invalid and the burden of proving it's validity is placed on the State.

As the poster above says, Re Art 26 & EEB lists some presumptively invalid categories (the ones I used above) but it did not include age. In Blascaod Mor, the courts suggested, although not expressly, that discriminating based on pedigree i.e who you're related to could possibly be presumptively invalid also.

Paz-CCFC

Could anyone tell me the topics which came up for Constitutional October last, as well as the four case notes? Thanks.

jenspondolik

missindigo123 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me if I'm right or wrong with this for Vicarious liability in tort.
There must be a relationship Atkin to that of employer / employee - courts will use the control test traditionally used however the courts also have consideration for factors such as the integration into the business and the payment of wages etc.

Then the second thing is that the employee had to be acting within the scope of his employment when the all edged wrongdoing took place. The courts have two tests that they use for this,
- implied authority test
- close connection test

They use them interchangeably and without any real justification for why.
The implied authority test is the more limited of the two and relates to acts which the employee could have considered to be delegated to him / acts he was authorised to do. Employer won't be liable for an intentional wrong such as in Lawlor where the lorry driver kidnapped a girl during work or in Farry where the employee restrained someone at a train station to get their ticket from them - liable here as thought he would be required do so whatever to get the ticket.

Then the second test, close-connection test, more like the real workplace. Where the act done is something which can be considered to be part of the job or is reasonably incidental to it then it will be considered as part of the course of employment - regardless of whether or not the employee was allowed to do it. Eg. In Poland, his plaintiffs hand as he believed that he was acting stealing - employer vicarious liable here.

Even where expressly prohibited from doing an act - he may be held to be VL. In Iqbal - a bus conductor was not VL where a bus conductor moved a bus because his job was to collect tickets not drive buses compared with Limpis where a bus driver raced a bus down road - VL.

In te context of intentional wrongs such as abuse or assault, the Employer won't be held to be VL where the act is considered beyond the scope of the employees authority as it would be unfair to impose liability on the employer where the employee had deliberately acted against his employers wishes.
Daniels - bouncer chased him down street - liable for this but not for the bouncer fracturing his skull.

Mohamud v. Morrison - followed customer to car park, racist attack etc not liable just because his job was to work with customers not enough to connect that and the attack

Abuse cases - liability won't be founded.

UK - lister case - Bazley - canada both found employers of school wardens in boarding schools VL for sexual assault
In Doe - church held VL

In Ireland - Delahunty v SEHB. not VL as the person abused was a visitor to the school

O'keeffee v hickey - Harriman J rejected close connection test + canadian approach but Fennelly J approved it and said criminal acts shouldn't be excluded and may even be automatically imposed...

So do we or don't we impose liability for sexual assaults?!

City says okeeffe approve close connection test no principle in excluding sex assault automatically from VL. I kind of get the sense there is scope then course and now close connection as a sub section. But if you apply what you've said you should be fine. The courts even use them interchangeable as long as u distinguish the areas. I've just covered land products and defamation. It'll be a long night. Is passing off tipped again?

amyeee

BatPateman wrote: »

Whats the story with the General negligence Question in tort? the examiner reports arent illuminating. I.e. the Ocotber 2014 Q.6 about the stove ? and the April 14 Question about the dolphin. The March 14 Question about the brick wall... etc.

I reckon the March 14 question about the brick wall just requires a discussion of the elements of negligence e.g. duty of care, breach of the standard of care, causation. The stove and dolphin questions are headwreckers though, would love some clarity on these.

S12b

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Could anyone tell me the topics which came up for Constitutional October last, as well as the four case notes? Thanks.

1) essay on proportionality

2) that sovereignty essay on Pringle and Crotty

3) the article 45 essay

4) Fleming v Ireland, Maher v Minister for Agri, Murphy v AG, TD v Min for Education

5) to be honest, I'm still not 100% sure....seems to be an essay on deference

6) problem q on referendum law

7) problem q on right to fair procedure

8) really not sure....can anyone clarify....something to do with being charged under legislation that has been abolished and the governments response

missindigo123

jenspondolik wrote: »

City says okeeffe approve close connection test no principle in excluding sex assault automatically from VL. I kind of get the sense there is scope then course and now close connection as a sub section. But if you apply what you've said you should be fine. The courts even use them interchangeable as long as u distinguish the areas. I've just covered land products and defamation. It'll be a long night. Is passing off tipped again?

Thanks a mill! I really hope that passing off comes up, I literally only know it because I'm addicted to McCanbridge bread haha!! I've trespass to person because it's not too difficult and short done ha and negligence and now this done! I'm thinking of leaving our defamation but it comes up loads! Ugh! And maybe leave out medical negligence too or just learn the nutshell !

jenspondolik

amyeee wrote: »

I reckon the March 14 question about the brick wall just requires a discussion of the elements of negligence e.g. duty of care, breach of the standard of care, causation. The stove and dolphin questions are headwreckers though, would love some clarity on these.

My grid says nuisance. report says negligence. Useless.

jenspondolik

missindigo123 wrote: »

Thanks a mill! I really hope that passing off comes up, I literally only know it because I'm addicted to McCanbridge bread haha!! I've trespass to person because it's not too difficult and short done ha and negligence and now this done! I'm thinking of leaving our defamation but it comes up loads! Ugh! And maybe leave out medical negligence too or just learn the nutshell !

Lol I'm having a cup of tea now. Then getting stuck into negligence I don't know where to start three topics read only. I find the less I know the better I do cos I'm calmer in exam on account of the hopelessness