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

sunshine and showers

Charitable Purpose + Public Benefit = Charitable Trust

Charitable Purposes in 2014 Act:

(a) the prevention and relief of poverty or economic hardship;
(b) the advancement of education;
(c) the advancement of religion;
(d) any other purpose that is of benefit to the community.


Poverty, education and religion aren't defined by the Act so your case law is useful for that.

Changes from 2009 Act:

(a) Poverty changes to poverty and the prevention of economic hardship. That addition of the latter part doesn't actually broaden the category, because "poverty" was always interpreted to include economic hardship anyway.
Don't forget that the fact that the trustee has discretion of who in a class of poor persons is to benefit from the trust does not effect the charitable nature of the trust.

Public benefit requirement of 2009 Act means the following cases are overruled:

Re Scarisbrick, Dingle v Turner, Re Denison.


(b) Education is to be broadly interpreted as it has been under the case law. Generally that means there can't be a personal nexus requirement to benefit under the trust. (Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd and Re the Trust of the Worth Library.)


(c) What does "religion" mean? Mention Article 44 of the Constitution and the fact that Quinn Supermarket v Attorney General holds that religion is not confined to Christianity.

Section 11 and Schedule 2 of the 2009 Act came into force in October 2014. These repeal Section 45 of the 1961 Act so that the celebration of masses (in public or in private) is no longer a gift for the advancement of religion. Now there is ambiguity in this area as to whether the saying of masses can be a charitable purpose or not. Can't say either way yet.

Section 3(4) of the 2009 Act says that gifts for the advancement of religion will be presumed to be for the public benefit unless the contrary is proved. Section 3(10) says what is definitely not a gift for the advancement of religion. Basically it disallows gifts to cults and using money psychological manipulation.


So use the case law to determine was (a), (b) and (c) apply to, but then determine if there is a public benefit conferred!

For what "public benefit" means, look at Section 3(3) and 3(7) of the act. Section 2(2)(a) is relevant to 3(7).

XxMCRxBabyxX

FeDespair wrote: »

Someone posted here a while back about topics they picked so I followed that. (Given the short amount of time to cover everything I had to whittle it down)

So I have notes for:

Maxims
Undue
Charitable
Injunctions
Resulting trusts-purchase money
3 certainties
Donatio
Estoppel

But like I said, as of this minute I cant remember anything about anything.

Well if it makes you feel better, you have more than I have right now and I can't remember much either! All we can do is try it. :-)

smeal

Yano, as silly as it sounds I really lost control this weekend. Came home on Friday after Constitutional just exhausted and was really put out by a great night out I missed last night which in the long term scope of things is ridiculous but still I'm just so so so sick of studying and missing out on living my life with these exams!

Have been staring at my notes all day literally hoping for words to go in but I can't remember the basics! Have ended up cutting it down to like 6 topics and hoping for the best but I'm pretty sure I will fail because I just don't have any half decent educated knowledge of the topic to attempt much! It was my first three as well but I will know for next time to just really cop on more and be more mentally prepared than anything!

God I dunno what I'd do without this group sometimes! Anyways, we've done well to get this far and best of luck tomorrow!

prior212

We get that the FE1s are stressful and all that but all this talk of crying on the phone and panic attacks is pure nonsense. Whinging and moaning on this won't help you. As if these exams are the be all and end all of the universe. **** is worse than pathetic seriously.

TinkledPink

prior212 wrote: »

We get that the FE1s are stressful and all that but all this talk of crying on the phone and panic attacks is pure nonsense. Whinging and moaning on this won't help you. As if these exams are the be all and end all of the universe. **** is worse than pathetic seriously.

Feck off Dad, ya gob****e.

smeal

prior212 wrote: »

We get that the FE1s are stressful and all that but all this talk of crying on the phone and panic attacks is pure nonsense. Whinging and moaning on this won't help you. As if these exams are the be all and end all of the universe. **** is worse than pathetic seriously.

Sorry but this is just plain ignorance. Yes, some of us might come here for a bit of night before moral support but we've all pulled together on this thread offering all kinds of support over the past couple of months and for many of us it's a back bone in helping one another get through especially when people outside of FE1s will unlikely understand.

To say that "as if these exams are the be all and end all of the universe" is an absolute tragic thing to say. Sure there is life outside exams but you haven't the slightest notion of each person's situation- what people might give up for these exams to get where they want to be, how much strain they put on some people financially. Most of us don't have the time to p**s around with them over years and years so have had to give up a lot to put all our blood, sweat and tears in at once.

Seriously, take your ignorance elsewhere. I'll personally make sure to note not to directly help with any of your questions on here in future.

hullaballoo

prior212 wrote: »

We get that the FE1s are stressful and all that but all this talk of crying on the phone and panic attacks is pure nonsense. Whinging and moaning on this won't help you. As if these exams are the be all and end all of the universe. **** is worse than pathetic seriously.

Modertator: member banned for the remainder of this FE1 sitting.

TinkledPink

Hail Mareva, full of grace. The Equity is with thee."

Should do the trick.

EthanSS

Guys, can anyone PLEASE help me. What is the significance of the EFC v Gharion case in terms of mareva injunctions? Thanks in advance.

sunshine and showers

My mother, who hasn't been to Mass of a Sunday in over five years, has been going to Mass every single day since last Tuesday.

Better work. :P

sunshine and showers

EthanSS wrote: »

Guys, can anyone PLEASE help me. What is the significance of the EFC v Gharion case in terms of mareva injunctions? Thanks in advance.

From my understanding of it, the HC endorsed Courtney's view (as well as Bennett Enterprises v Lipton) that the defendant's "nefarious intention" to dispose of his assets in order to defeat his obligations to the plaintiff and to frustrate an anticipated court order are is the ultimate purpose of the mareva injunction in Ireland.

The Courtney quote is the basis of Q1 of the October 2013 paper.

If you Google the case, there's a relevant chunk of the judgment in City College's Night Before Notes.

Daryl Strawberry

EthanSS wrote: »

Guys, can anyone PLEASE help me. What is the significance of the EFC v Gharion case in terms of mareva injunctions? Thanks in advance.

Eugene F Collins v Gharion – refused Mareva-type injunction sought to restrain D from reducing cash balance below particular figure on the basis that D was an unlimited company and directors and shareholders remained liable for its debts – viewed as retrenchment from tendency towards loosening requirements and reducing the obligation on P to only showing a ‘nefarious intention’


Sorry the phrasing etc is god awful, but its what im going off!

EthanSS

Thanks SO much guys, so that's the most up-to-date case on the matter then. My MI notes are all over the shop!! Thanks again.

EthanSS

How would one go about structuring an answer to Q1 of the October 2013 paper on MI's and the EFC case. I would have so little to write on it as my notes are on MI's in general. I don;t have my exam reports with me. Help!! and again thanks very much.

sunshine and showers

EthanSS wrote: »

How would one go about structuring an answer to Q1 of the October 2013 paper on MI's and the EFC case. I would have so little to write on it as my notes are on MI's in general. I don;t have my exam reports with me. Help!! and again thanks very much.

You have to agree or disagree with the statement on the importance of the intention of the defendant in the grant of a mareva injunction in Ireland.

Best option here is to outline, briefly, what a Mareva injunction is. Do not throw down everything you know about them, though - that was a specific criticism of her report.

After that, she wants to know about intention. Relevant cases include: Fleming v Ranks, O'Mahony v Horgan, Powerscourt Estates v Gallagher, Production Association Minsk Tractor Works v Saenko. It's a well established requirement in Irish law.

The requirement places onerous obligation on P, as he has to prove D's intention of affadavit evidence in an ex parte application. Bennett Enterprises v Lipton says that direct evidence of D's intention will rarely be available, so the court will consider all the relevant circumstances. Tracey v Bowen says these can include inferences drawn from the nature of the wrongdoing alleged (if it's fraudulent or unconscionable, it may lead to further such behaviour eg. disippation of funds).

Throw in how the test in England focuses on the effect of D's actions as opposed to intent (The Niedersachsen). Say it's too easy a test (if you agree with statement) or a better test (if you disagree with statement).

Basically, this is a prime example of answering the question asked. The examiner doesn't care about what you know about the balance of convenience, the substantive action, or the standard of proof of a good arguable case. She only wants to know about the role of intention on granting MIs.

Oh, and don't forget to pick a side and agree or disagree!

TinkledPink

At the same time, don't be afraid to work what you do know into your answer. You can make material relevant with a bit of tact. A lot of the time questions are so open ended anyway it's just a matter of tweaking your knowledge around a bit so I'd be slow to instantly drop material you have ready if a question on MIs appears a bit awkward. I wouldn't be able to write several pages solely on the need to prove the intention of the defendant, not in the detail above anyway.

Instead, I'd just talk about how the essence of the MI and how it's primarily focused on the actions and possible intentions of the defendant. You can natter on then about how the remedy is defendant orientated - Third Chandris Shipping guidelines - the importance of full disclosure because of the risk of harming the defendant if he has no such intention of frustrating any judgment. Then you can get to what you have to prove and focusing specifically on the def.

In a lot of ways, a question asking you to discuss proving the intentions of a defendant so as to obtain an MI's is much the same as asking: "MIs, discuss?" It's just not as overt and forces you to keep on point about the defendants intentions and what a plaintiff has to do to satisfy a court for an MI.

jenspondolik

Good luck with Equity everyone! This time next week

jenspondolik

EU here's the plan its probably madness but I won't get it done by Friday

1. Institutions v quickly and then write from treaties in exam
2. Principles fundamental rights etc
3 Impact direct effect supremacy
4.Ms liability
5. Judicial review
6. Four freedoms
7. Union citizenship

If time I'll do sources of law and maybe state aid. I know competition a banker but its massive...

maya_bb

Getting so confused with EU. What legislative procedure is used for legislative acts and non-legislative acts, and what do they mean by comitlogy committees? My manual isn't very clear.

maya_bb

jenspondolik wrote: »

EU here's the plan its probably madness but I won't get it done by Friday

1. Institutions v quickly and then write from treaties in exam
2. Principles fundamental rights etc
3 Impact direct effect supremacy
4.Ms liability
5. Judicial review
6. Four freedoms
7. Union citizenship

If time I'll do sources of law and maybe state aid. I know competition a banker but its massive...

That's my thinking too, I'm leaving out competition but I'vemade notes on state aid and sources.

jenspondolik

maya_bb wrote: »

That's my thinking too, I'm leaving out competition but I'vemade notes on state aid and sources.

Cool I only got notes done yesterday on ms liability, impact on ms and judicial review. So hoping to get notes on all the rest today done (v ambitious) and then start learning tomorrow. Not sure if possible but I'll try

Lily Belle

jenspondolik wrote: »

Cool I only got notes done yesterday on ms liability, impact on ms and judicial review. So hoping to get notes on all the rest today done (v ambitious) and then start learning tomorrow. Not sure if possible but I'll try

Covering the same topics as you (not going near anything on competition) and won't get to look at it until Thursday afternoon so you've plenty time yet! I think it's doable (trying to be positive ha).

Shan89

jenspondolik wrote: »

EU here's the plan its probably madness but I won't get it done by Friday

1. Institutions v quickly and then write from treaties in exam
2. Principles fundamental rights etc
3 Impact direct effect supremacy
4.Ms liability
5. Judicial review
6. Four freedoms
7. Union citizenship

If time I'll do sources of law and maybe state aid. I know competition a banker but its massive...

I haven't looked at institutions even though it's a guaranteed. I see that a lot of it is in the treaty so thinking now I might have a look at it as I'm worried Iv left myself short.. What are the main parts we need to know?? It just seems like a huge topic?

jenspondolik

Shan89 wrote: »

I haven't looked at institutions even though it's a guaranteed. I see that a lot of it is in the treaty so thinking now I might have a look at it as I'm worried Iv left myself short.. What are the main parts we need to know?? It just seems like a huge topic?

I haven't looked at it yet so it will probably be tomorrow or weds. Only looking at FMG now taking ages and sure nothing going in as per usually. I think i might dispense with doing notes and just work from the manual its too time consuming this late stage and when I do notes I don't take it in.

maya_bb

Shan89 wrote: »

I haven't looked at institutions even though it's a guaranteed. I see that a lot of it is in the treaty so thinking now I might have a look at it as I'm worried Iv left myself short.. What are the main parts we need to know?? It just seems like a huge topic?

City colleges NBN has a good summary on the key areas.

dashdoll

Equity Paper

Q1 Estoppel problem
Q2 Tracing Essay
Q3 Secret Trust Problem
Q4 Specific Performance essay
Q5 Donatia Mortis Causa problem
Q6 Mareva Inj essay
Q7 Note qs, 2 of Non Charitable Purpose Trusts, Gifts for relief of poverty or Satisfaction
Q8 Advancement I think?

Anyone have any experience on how Equity is marked. I did 5 very average questions which were slightly waffley 😯

TinkledPink

That wasn't so bad. I had covered everything on express trusts except the DMC so had to change course a bit there but other than that and no UI on the paper, it seemed grand.
Solid Qs on resulting, tracing and mareva. Did a half baked Q on estoppel, forgot some case names. Nailed satisfaction but only about 5 lines on charitable. Hopefully it'll be enough. Only looking for 50%. Didn't fancy doing Secret trusts or SP.

lawbear

Finally a nice normal paper, donatio mortis causa, secret trusts, mareva, specific performance, resulting trusts, each one of these questions featured before. This is a first feeling okay coming out of an exam. 3down 5 to go…time a nap and then onto contact, I'm feeling excited that the end is near

jenspondolik

dashdoll wrote: »

Equity Paper

Q1 Estoppel problem
Q2 Tracing Essay
Q3 Secret Trust Problem
Q4 Specific Performance essay
Q5 Donatia Mortis Causa problem
Q6 Mareva Inj essay
Q7 Note qs, 2 of Non Charitable Purpose Trusts, Gifts for relief of poverty or Satisfaction
Q8 Advancement I think?

Anyone have any experience on how Equity is marked. I did 5 very average questions which were slightly waffley 😯

I passed equity with 4.5 extremely waffley questions. Gave up and went in. Wrote what I could recall and got 50% and regretted not revising then. You'll be OK with five qs done.

dashdoll

jenspondolik wrote: »

I passed equity with 4.5 extremely waffley questions. Gave up and went in. Wrote what I could recall and got 50% and regretted not revising then. You'll be OK with five qs done.

Il take your word for it!