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

Peregrinus

Talk to them about being allowed to keyboard your answers (on a dumb machine, natch). I don't know what there attitude is, but if you have a diagnosis of dysgraphia or similar a lot of educational institutions will accommodate this, so as not to disadvantage students over an issue which is not relevant to the attainments and aptitudes an exam is supposed to measure.

And, whatever happens, learn to touch-type. It will make a huge difference to you.

Simplyliving04

EU law question here I cannot wrap my head around that I really hope some kind soul can help me out with!

Regarding Article 110 and justifications for indirectly discriminatory measures - Why can member states justify indirectly discriminatory measures so long as it pursues a legitimate policy objective (presuming of course it applies to domestic and imported products the same).

Reading the Chemical Farmaceutici case and I still can't understand where the allowance for a justification comes from when the treaty article expressly prohibits "directly or indirectly" any taxes in excess of those imposed on similar products. The two types of alcohol in the case satisfied the similar test, one was imported the other not and were taxed differently. I can find no justification anywhere in the treaties for allowing such a difference on legitimate policy grounds.

I feel like I am missing something outrageously obvious here. Many thanks if anyone can help clear this up for me as it's blockading my whole fundamental freedoms comprehension!

chops018

Simplyliving04 wrote: »

EU law question here I cannot wrap my head around that I really hope some kind soul can help me out with!

Regarding Article 110 and justifications for indirectly discriminatory measures - Why can member states justify indirectly discriminatory measures so long as it pursues a legitimate policy objective (presuming of course it applies to domestic and imported products the same).

Reading the Chemical Farmaceutici case and I still can't understand where the allowance for a justification comes from when the treaty article expressly prohibits "directly or indirectly" any taxes in excess of those imposed on similar products. The two types of alcohol in the case satisfied the similar test, one was imported the other not and were taxed differently. I can find no justification anywhere in the treaties for allowing such a difference on legitimate policy grounds.

I feel like I am missing something outrageously obvious here. Many thanks if anyone can help clear this up for me as it's blockading my whole fundamental freedoms comprehension!

Just having a quick look over my old notes and found this:

1) Justification for Indirect Discrimination

MS can justify the tax if it’s to pursue a Legitimate Objective” – Unrelated to Origin of the Product:
1. The Test must apply in an identically manner to both Imports and Domestic Goods
2. Pursue a Legitimate Policy Objective
3. Be based on OBJECTIVE CRITERIA that Justify this Indirect Discrimination
4. Apply in a Non-Discriminatory Manner

Chemial Farmaceutici
Higher tax applied to Syntehtic Ethyl Alcohol as compared with naturally obtained Ethyl Alcohol – BOTH Products WERE Very Similar within meaning of A110(1). This favoured domestic goods over imports – since imports were MORE LIKELY to be taxed at higher rate taly argued that Objective Factors motivated the Taxation, and that there was a Legitimate Objective – which was that the Synthetic Alcohol could be thereby preserved – and thereby used for alternative economic purposes
 ECJ Said that this was allowable – they DID “Look Behind” Italy’s assertion that there were Objective Factors and/or that there was a Legitimate Objective – but in this case, both criteria existed.


Hope that helps you

Simplyliving04

chops018 wrote: »

Just having a quick look over my old notes and found this:

1) Justification for Indirect Discrimination

MS can justify the tax if it’s to pursue a Legitimate Objective” – Unrelated to Origin of the Product:
1. The Test must apply in an identically manner to both Imports and Domestic Goods
2. Pursue a Legitimate Policy Objective
3. Be based on OBJECTIVE CRITERIA that Justify this Indirect Discrimination
4. Apply in a Non-Discriminatory Manner

Hey Chops, many thanks for that! I guess my real question is not how various cases have satisfied this criteria as you laid out above but rather, where did the ECJ get the authority to even set out such criteria in the first place?!

It seems as if the treaty provisions in 110 are against all direct or direct discriminatory measures without providing a 'policy objective' derogation clause as provided for with other fundamental freedoms

Simplyliving04

chops018 wrote: »

Just having a quick look over my old notes and found this:

1) Justification for Indirect Discrimination

MS can justify the tax if it’s to pursue a Legitimate Objective” – Unrelated to Origin of the Product:
1. The Test must apply in an identically manner to both Imports and Domestic Goods
2. Pursue a Legitimate Policy Objective
3. Be based on OBJECTIVE CRITERIA that Justify this Indirect Discrimination
4. Apply in a Non-Discriminatory Manner

Hey Chops, many thanks for that! I guess my real question is not how various cases have satisfied this criteria as you laid out above but rather, where did the ECJ get the authority to even set out such criteria in the first place?!

It seems as if the treaty provisions in 110 are against all direct or indirect discriminatory measures without providing a 'policy objective' derogation clause as provided for with other fundamental freedoms

chops018

Simplyliving04 wrote: »

Hey Chops, many thanks for that! I guess my real question is not how various cases have satisfied this criteria as you laid out above but rather, where did the ECJ get the authority to even set out such criteria in the first place?!

It seems as if the treaty provisions in 110 are against all direct or indirect discriminatory measures without providing a 'policy objective' derogation clause as provided for with other fundamental freedoms

I cannot answer that off the top of my head and I am not going through treaties and past case law - had my old notes handy this morning so just thought I would pop that up in the hope it might help.

Your question seems like it may be beyond the scope of the FE1's - forgive me if there was a certain question that came up on what you're asking but I do not think you need to go into so much detail - the case law is there for you to read, maybe go through the full judgment of the case?

Sorry I cannot help you any further - I passed the FE1's last year and the EU subject in the March 2013 sitting so I would not be as fully immersed into the intricacies of EU Law as I once was.

Funny - most people hated Constitutional and EU the most, whereas I found them fascinating to study. They are hard subjects to wrap your head around though.

Simplyliving04

chops018 wrote: »

I cannot answer that off the top of my head and I am not going through treaties and past case law - had my old notes handy this morning so just thought I would pop that up in the hope it might help.

Your question seems like it may be beyond the scope of the FE1's - forgive me if there was a certain question that came up on what you're asking but I do not think you need to go into so much detail - the case law is there for you to read, maybe go through the full judgment of the case?

Sorry I cannot help you any further - I passed the FE1's last year and the EU subject in the March 2013 sitting so I would not be as fully immersed into the intricacies of EU Law as I once was.

Funny - most people hated Constitutional and EU the most, whereas I found them fascinating to study. They are hard subjects to wrap your head around though.

No worries, thanks for the help anyway. I'll take it I don't need to know and that the justification is somewhere.

The ECJ seemed fond of an over-expansive interpretation of their powers anyway so it might just be case of that!

neesie_85

FE1 student wrote: »

I am dreading the EU exam. I hope it's nothing like the last one. I just can't get motivated to study it at all and time is ticking.

THIS IS MY LAST EXAM AND CANNOT GET MOTIVATED AT ALL!

FEar1

Hello everyone. Here we go again.

Finally pushed myself into looking at Company Law in depth for the first time since 2010. As it turns out, I still don't like it.

I am obviously doing up notes on the 'core' topics, which I hear are Directors, Corporate Borrowing, Minority Shareholder Protection and Separate Legal Personality (although I notice Courtney has asked the same SLP question twice in a row now which worries me). I think I read someone saying back in March that they thought Ultra Vires might just get one last day out too.

Can anybody else sitting/suffering Company Law share their thoughts on what direction to go in terms of other topics?

smeal

FEar1 wrote: »

Hello everyone. Here we go again.

Finally pushed myself into looking at Company Law in depth for the first time since 2010. As it turns out, I still don't like it.

I am obviously doing up notes on the 'core' topics, which I hear are Directors, Corporate Borrowing, Minority Shareholder Protection and Separate Legal Personality (although I notice Courtney has asked the same SLP question twice in a row now which worries me). I think I read someone saying back in March that they thought Ultra Vires might just get one last day out too.

Can anybody else sitting/suffering Company Law share their thoughts on what direction to go in terms of other topics?

So far I've made notes on SLP, Directors, Shares, Corporate Borrowing, Capital Maintenance, Corporate Authority and Receivership- will probably throw in another topic at some point if I'm time but I really need to get my skates on for EU!

Kcookies2015

FEar1 wrote: »

Hello everyone. Here we go again.

Finally pushed myself into looking at Company Law in depth for the first time since 2010. As it turns out, I still don't like it.

I am obviously doing up notes on the 'core' topics, which I hear are Directors, Corporate Borrowing, Minority Shareholder Protection and Separate Legal Personality (although I notice Courtney has asked the same SLP question twice in a row now which worries me). I think I read someone saying back in March that they thought Ultra Vires might just get one last day out too.

Can anybody else sitting/suffering Company Law share their thoughts on what direction to go in terms of other topics?

Sitting Fe1's for the first time myself just finished my degree, having just done company the past 2 semesters I'm covering : Corporate Borrowing, Corporate Tort & Crime ( briefly) Directors & their duties,Examinership & winding up, Incorpoartion and it's consequences, lifting the veil of incorporation, reckless & fradulant trading and after that with 4 more exams.... I cant fit anymore reading in. I have so good notes and small few sample answers if you need a hand

Kcookies2015

FEar1 wrote: »

Hello everyone. Here we go again.

Finally pushed myself into looking at Company Law in depth for the first time since 2010. As it turns out, I still don't like it.

I am obviously doing up notes on the 'core' topics, which I hear are Directors, Corporate Borrowing, Minority Shareholder Protection and Separate Legal Personality (although I notice Courtney has asked the same SLP question twice in a row now which worries me). I think I read someone saying back in March that they thought Ultra Vires might just get one last day out too.

Can anybody else sitting/suffering Company Law share their thoughts on what direction to go in terms of other topics?

Sitting Fe1's for the first time myself just finished my degree, having just done company the past 2 semesters I'm covering : Corporate Borrowing, Corporate Tort & Crime ( briefly) Directors & their duties,Examinership & winding up, Incorpoartion and it's consequences, lifting the veil of incorporation, reckless & fradulant trading and after that with 4 more exams.... I cant fit anymore reading in. I have some good notes and small few sample answers if you need a hand

sunshine and showers

neesie_85 wrote: »

THIS IS MY LAST EXAM AND CANNOT GET MOTIVATED AT ALL!

I swear I'm still traumatised from the last sitting.

neesie_85

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I swear I'm still traumatised from the last sitting.

I am looking at the manual and thinking this might actually be worse than Constitutional!

sunshine and showers

neesie_85 wrote: »

I am looking at the manual and thinking this might actually be worse than Constitutional!

Honestly, right now I'd prefer to put my efforts into an emergency referendum to exit the EU before October than actual study of the law.

FEar1

smeal wrote: »

So far I've made notes on SLP, Directors, Shares, Corporate Borrowing, Capital Maintenance, Corporate Authority and Receivership- will probably throw in another topic at some point if I'm time but I really need to get my skates on for EU!

I'm going along same lines smeal. Receivership looks OK (like Examinership I suppose) but I hear it comes up quite rarely. What are you covering in terms of Corporate Authority?

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

Sitting Fe1's for the first time myself just finished my degree, having just done company the past 2 semesters I'm covering : Corporate Borrowing, Corporate Tort & Crime ( briefly) Directors & their duties,Examinership & winding up, Incorpoartion and it's consequences, lifting the veil of incorporation, reckless & fradulant trading and after that with 4 more exams.... I cant fit anymore reading in. I have some good notes and small few sample answers if you need a hand

Thanks Kcookies. You're pretty much exactly on a par with me so far bar I havn't covered reckless and fraudulent trading. I hope to but, like yourself, time will sway the decision! haha

What do we all reckon on minority shareholder protection versus share transfer? As likely as each other or are we expecting one more than the other?

FE1 student

neesie_85 wrote: »

THIS IS MY LAST EXAM AND CANNOT GET MOTIVATED AT ALL!

Mine too and I just don't know where to start. The last one freaked me out so much that I just think I can't do this. Talk about falling at the final hurdle !

smeal

FEar1 wrote: »

I'm going along same lines smeal. Receivership looks OK (like Examinership I suppose) but I hear it comes up quite rarely. What are you covering in terms of Corporate Authority?

Yeah I might just quickly browse over the basics of Examinership- duties of an examiner etc but I really won't have time to do much else! For corporate authority I'm covering actual v ostensible authority and then the rule in Turquand's case. There doesn't seem to be much else to that chapter but looks useful

law_student1

Hi guys,

In terms of EU, how many topics are people studying?

I have Institutions, Sources of EU Law, General Principles of Eu Law, Direct Effect & Supremacy, MS Liability, FMG, FMS, FOE, FM Workers, FM Capital and Citizenship written up. I intend to write up Competition and prepare for the case note question also. Is this enough to cover every eventuality do you think? I'm wondering can I sleep easily even though I have left out Equality/Private Law/Mergers/Judicial Review etc..

All opinions appreciated guys!

Legalfarmer89

How are people finding Equity and Contract ( Im finding these topics which are supposedly easy annoying)? Im doing four including Tort and Land Law which I believe think are ok! Just finding it hard to get motivated to study consistently.
For Equity obviously I've studied injunctions fairly conclusively, and looked at some of the smaller easier topics such as rescission, secret trusts, tracing and rectification which ties in nicely with contract. I've read a bit about constructive trusts, equitable estoppel and specific performance. What are the predictions this time around for equity?
Is there anybody who has done the equity exam previously who could go into what kind of detail is necessary to pass!
These exams are tiring!

FEar1

Legalfarmer89 wrote: »

How are people finding Equity and Contract ( Im finding these topics which are supposedly easy annoying)? Im doing four including Tort and Land Law which I believe think are ok! Just finding it hard to get motivated to study consistently.
For Equity obviously I've studied injunctions fairly conclusively, and looked at some of the smaller easier topics such as rescission, secret trusts, tracing and rectification which ties in nicely with contract. I've read a bit about constructive trusts, equitable estoppel and specific performance. What are the predictions this time around for equity?
Is there anybody who has done the equity exam previously who could go into what kind of detail is necessary to pass!
These exams are tiring!

I'd say you're covering yourself fairly well. Proprietary Estoppel, Specific Performance, Injunctions, Trusts and Tracing covers a lot of areas. People may agree with me on this but the likes of Secret Trusts and Mareva Injunctions that came up last time will probably be replaced with another type of Injunction and another type of Trust this time round. As far as I recall, they are two that are regularly rotated. I'd say Trusteeship is due a decent run out too, possibly a full question. I don't remember seeing a question on it in March this year?

prettylamp

Hey if anyone is doing the independent colleges lectures on constitutional with Veronica McInerney - could you give me the updated "star chart" for this sitting? I'd really appreciate it!

Hunchback

I am doing the one day revision course with Griffith College in Dublin. Has anyone ever done these before and is there any feedback on them?

What are they like in terms of practical advice? Like say for example, predictions and mentioning how frequently things appear on the papers. I have City Colleges manuals for some things and Griffith College manuals for other things. As another poster mentioned before, the City College manuals do appear to have quite a few typos in them. But one thing that is really handy about the City College manuals is that they give you a good idea of the relative importance of each topic and how frequently they appear, something the Griffith College manuals don't do.

I know you could work this out yourself if you could get your hands on Grids, but it seems like the City Colleges manuals are more practical and are geared towards minimizing the burden on the student in terms of what they have to study.

So, when you are on the Griffith College courses, do they impart any practical advice like that?

FE1 EXAMS 2013

Would anybody please have a up to date exam grid for EU, I have every other subject that I could help somebody out with. It would help me out so much! I am allergic to EU!

conorh91

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Honestly, right now I'd prefer to put my efforts into an emergency referendum to exit the EU before October than actual study of the law.

Oh to have lived before Accession!

Imagine how easy the undergraduate & professional exams must have been back in the day ... no EU law, incredibly slim constitutional law, and the law of negligence had come no further than Hedley Byrne. The rest of their time would have been spent merely on Contract, bitta Criminal, and straightforward Victorian torts.

It's no wonder the older lawyers' university anecdotes all seem to involve being on the piss 24/7. They had little else to do. Jammy.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Hi All

Im trying to study Constitutional Law but my materials only go as far as 2011. I was wondering would anyone be kind enough to list out the important cases which happened since then. I know Flemming and RvR were big but I'm a bit lost as to what else I'm missing.

LawyrUp

Hi,

I was just wondering if anyone has previously attended the one day intensive EU LAW revision course in Griffith College and if so, would you recommend it?

Can 6 intensive hours of tuition really make that much of a difference?

I really hope so because it's my last chance to pass it.

Anyway, just interested to hear any opinions/personal experience of the course before I sign up.

Thanks a million.

Orlando146

Can anyone let me know what topics came up in March 201515 for contract, criminal and equity?

Trying to update my grid.

FEar1

Ok, I've done up notes for Directors (incl. Restriction), Reckless & Fraudulent Trading, Corporate Borrowing, SLP, Share Transfer and Ultra Vires.

How are we feeling about these topics for Company? Anything else due a run do we reckon?

I don't think I can fit any more Company law in my head.

Tired_Man

Hi there,

I was just wondering if anybody had a list of the topics which came up on the Equity paper in March?

It's my last exam now. In a fit of what I now realise to be arrogance coupled with relief I ripped up the paper and threw it in the bin afterwards and got 47! It seems pretty funny now. Just for anyone doing their first set or lacking motivation for repeats (I have been there) a really important part of passing them especially in the final month leading up to them is to just keep grinding away for as many hours as possible and it'll be fine.