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

bivo87

What topics are people covering for equity. Failed it last time round so i feel like i have a bit of a mental block

shy-tall-knight

Adverse Possession question was tricky, knew flip all about adverse possession of leaseholds and that's probably where reform was most needed.

Christy_C

bivo87 wrote: »

What topics are people covering for equity. Failed it last time round so i feel like i have a bit of a mental block

I'm covering injunctions: interlocutory, mareva and anton. Specific performance. Rescission. Express trusts. Purpose trusts. Resulting trusts. Trustees. For the note question I'm covering rectification, strong v bird, satisfaction. I may also try and cover proprietary estoppel if I have time and maybe bullet points for the maxims for the note question.

FE1 student

I am so freaked out about EU. I have just finished work so only have a few days to really get to grips with it, as in get it learnt off. I have being try to cover as much of the course as possible but I think to my detriment. Instead of knowing a little about everything I actually think I know nothing. I can't remember case law and what I do I can't remember what area it relates too. So stressed out, anyone any advice as to how i can use my time wisely at this stage.

Iceman101

On the last question in property as a side note to the s117 application and the case law thereof I said that as there is no mention of what type of relationship Julia had with her step father I expressly took the view that they had a close relationship. There was nothing on the paper to say that this wasn't the case. As I was advising Julia I recommended to her , that due to her "ever so close relationship with her stepfather" it would be prudent to inform him of his appropriation rights regarding the family home and that as they have such a close relationship and it wasn't mentioned that he had any other kids that this would be her best shot at getting something out of the will because he would ultimately leave it to her due to their close relationship. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. As stated this was ancillary yo the application of 117, re tam, re iac, re abc and Denis v Mcdonald.

OJ4

Iceman101 wrote: »

On the last question in property as a side note to the s117 application and the case law thereof I said that as there is no mention of what type of relationship Julia had with her step father I expressly took the view that they had a close relationship. There was nothing on the paper to say that this wasn't the case. As I was advising Julia I recommended to her , that due to her "ever so close relationship with her stepfather" it would be prudent to inform him of his appropriation rights regarding the family home and that as they have such a close relationship and it wasn't mentioned that he had any other kids that this would be her best shot at getting something out of the will because he would ultimately leave it to her due to their close relationship. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. As stated this was ancillary yo the application of 117, re tam, re iac, re abc and Denis v Mcdonald.

re this what did you guys right for the first part of that q part A. Who should bill and bobs property? kinda confused me

Lawexe2012

OJ4 wrote: »

re this what did you guys right for the first part of that q part A. Who should bill and bobs property? kinda confused me

Bill and Bob were joint tenants. Under section 5 of the succession act, commeriantes meant that where two JT died, they were considered to die simultaneously. However that was during 1965 when the rules of primogeniture were abided by. Nowadays the death of two joint tenants where they are the only two tenants will results in a tenancy in common and the right of survivorship does not apply

Lawexe2012

Iceman101 wrote: »

On the last question in property as a side note to the s117 application and the case law thereof I said that as there is no mention of what type of relationship Julia had with her step father I expressly took the view that they had a close relationship. There was nothing on the paper to say that this wasn't the case. As I was advising Julia I recommended to her , that due to her "ever so close relationship with her stepfather" it would be prudent to inform him of his appropriation rights regarding the family home and that as they have such a close relationship and it wasn't mentioned that he had any other kids that this would be her best shot at getting something out of the will because he would ultimately leave it to her due to their close relationship. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. As stated this was ancillary yo the application of 117, re tam, re iac, re abc and Denis v Mcdonald.

I stated that as the legal right share was being left to a man who was not her biological father she could make a 117 application to court but that it would be likely that such would be denied as her mother had paid for her education and expenses

Kcookies2015

Lawexe2012 wrote: »

I stated that as the legal right share was being left to a man who was not her biological father she could make a 117 application to court but that it would be likely that such would be denied as her mother had paid for her education and expenses

I stated the same that she could make the application under s117 as he's not her biological father but she was put through college etc and no moral duty was owed as her mother had acted just and prudent as seen in abc deceased case. Wasn't a hard paper but Q2 had so many elements I nearly wrote out 2 pages to dissect it into each person! 3 more to go..... Doom & gloom

Lawexe2012

For the adverse possession question, I said that Leigh v jack and its application in Irish law was an issue and that even though Durack v Considene and PA(Oxford) v Graham showed that we were willing to look at the intention of the squatter rather than the intention of the true land owner it was still flawed as it was not clear from the law? Does any of that make sense to anyway? Cause I kind made it up on the fly! Thanks in advance to everyone!

smeal

Lawexe2012 wrote: »

For the adverse possession question, I said that Leigh v jack and its application in Irish law was an issue and that even though Durack v Considene and PA(Oxford) v Graham showed that we were willing to look at the intention of the squatter rather than the intention of the true land owner it was still flawed as it was not clear from the law? Does any of that make sense to anyway? Cause I kind made it up on the fly! Thanks in advance to everyone!

I pretty much said the same thing! I don't really have an opinion on adverse possession at all so had to bluff as I was completely set for a nifty problem question on it! I said the same re Leigh V Jack and I criticised the lack of set in stone statutory provision that both the squattor and landowner can rely on. I really pulled things out of mid air on this one! I doubt many people would have went in with a prepared essay on reform so hopefully he'll give marks for imaginative opinions!!

All in all fairly happy with the paper apart from the Residential Tenancies Act question- struggled to think of any case law to back it up other than that Uras na Gaeltachta case (and even then I don't know if it applied but what the heck, through it in anyways!!)

livelovelaugh

FE1 student wrote: »

I am so freaked out about EU. I have just finished work so only have a few days to really get to grips with it, as in get it learnt off. I have being try to cover as much of the course as possible but I think to my detriment. Instead of knowing a little about everything I actually think I know nothing. I can't remember case law and what I do I can't remember what area it relates too. So stressed out, anyone any advice as to how i can use my time wisely at this stage.

I feel your pain! What is everyone covering? I know very little right now so I need to cut topics but am not sure what to cut out? Just spent the day on Competition Law and still not through it...unlikely to scrape a pass at this rate! Any pointers would be hugely appreciated! We are nearly there!!!!!

Mileyt

Re property exam
Does anyone know if she is a good marker I attempted five questions but not really sure if il scrape a pass ;(

OfficeGirl2015

Iceman101 wrote: »

On the last question in property as a side note to the s117 application and the case law thereof I said that as there is no mention of what type of relationship Julia had with her step father I expressly took the view that they had a close relationship. There was nothing on the paper to say that this wasn't the case. As I was advising Julia I recommended to her , that due to her "ever so close relationship with her stepfather" it would be prudent to inform him of his appropriation rights regarding the family home and that as they have such a close relationship and it wasn't mentioned that he had any other kids that this would be her best shot at getting something out of the will because he would ultimately leave it to her due to their close relationship. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. As stated this was ancillary yo the application of 117, re tam, re iac, re abc and Denis v Mcdonald.

Was everything not left to a cat and dog home? I advised on s117 and that the husband would have LRS under S111 and executor had duty to advise him of same under S115?

DaveKit

European Union Law!

Would I be mad to cut Sources of Law and General Principles? The questions look very specific every year.

How are people studying for these topics?

Has anyone cut the course down to a manageable size or a well calculated risk?

Kind Regards
Dave

Mileyt

livelovelaugh wrote:

I feel your pain! What is everyone covering? I know very little right now so I need to cut topics but am not sure what to cut out? Just spent the day on Competition Law and still not through it...unlikely to scrape a pass at this rate! Any pointers would be hugely appreciated! We are nearly there!!!!!

I think the key is to know a little about a lot apparently if you attempt five he will pass you !!

livelovelaugh

Mileyt wrote: »

Re property exam
Does anyone know if she is a good marker I attempted five questions but not really sure if il scrape a pass ;(

I have sat a few different exams for Ashling Parkes and I have always found her to be a fair marker. If you attempted five, you should be grand!

Kcookies2015

OfficeGirl2015 wrote: »

Was everything not left to a cat and dog home? I advised on s117 and that the husband would have LRS under S111 and executor had duty to advise him of same under S115?

OfficeGirl2015 wrote: »

Was everything not left to a cat and dog home? I advised on s117 and that the husband would have LRS under S111 and executor had duty to advise him of same under S115?

I could be wrong here and way too wrecked to check but as an issue according to s117 the child can put forward a claim in the estate gifted to the husband of his LRS as he is not her biological father, also had mother not acted with moral duty i presume provisions for Julie would take preference over cat & dog home? But she couldn't if he was her biological father. The court would not rule in her favour regardless but steps had to mentioned that could be taken like in case law?

lawgirl23

Mileyt wrote: »

I think the key is to know a little about a lot apparently if you attempt five he will pass you !!

Agreed. I passed EU in March 2015 with a definitely below average paper but attempted 5 questions and was throwing stuff from the Treaties in like no tomorrow!!

Hunchback

Mileyt wrote: »

I think the key is to know a little about a lot apparently if you attempt five he will pass you !!

I have been seriously waiting, hoping somebody would say something like this! Gives me hope

FE1 student

lawgirl23 wrote: »

Agreed. I passed EU in March 2015 with a definitely below average paper but attempted 5 questions and was throwing stuff from the Treaties in like no tomorrow!!

I am so worried it will be like the paper in March and I won't have a clue what he is asking again. I read his questions and some of them I don't even know what area of EU they are !!

Mileyt

Kcookies2015 wrote:

I could be wrong here and way too wrecked to check but as an issue according to s117 the child can put forward a claim in the estate gifted to the husband of his LRS as he is not her biological father, also had mother not acted with moral duty i presume provisions for Julie would take preference over cat & dog home? But she couldn't if he was her biological father. The court would not rule in her favour regardless but steps had to mentioned that could be taken like in case law?

Omg I cannot believe I misread the question. I thought the husband had left the ma the estate I didn't even mention him I just advised Julie on s117 supported with case law etc and that onus is on her and court more willing to intervene if breakdown of relationships ;(

fionnsci

For EU, I was thinking of having (scant) knowledge of:
- Institutions
- Supremacy, Direct Effect
- MS Liability
- Judicial Review
- Preliminary Reference Procedure and Enforcement
- Citizenship
- Free Movements
- Competition

Would this (with or without a case note question - fingers crossed) do, do people think? Is it roughly in line with the amount the rest of you are covering? Anything jumping out that's not there and is easy to cover in vague detail? Thanks.

Fe1r

Hate to throw a spanner in the works but there is a new internal examiner for EU

FE1 student

Fe1r wrote: »

Hate to throw a spanner in the works but there is a new internal examiner for EU

I heard this also but can we assume given the mess of march's EU paper something like that won't be happening again or would the previous examiner have set two papers in January and we are the unfortunates that have to deal with his final paper. This is unnecessary stress. I hate EU. I just want to have a nap and forget all about these exams but I can't even sleep. Rant over

OfficeGirl2015

OJ4 wrote: »

re this what did you guys right for the first part of that q part A. Who should bill and bobs property? kinda confused me

I said Section 5 Success Act commenties original position. LRC recommended reform in their 2003 land reform report and amended by S68 of the Civil (Misc. provisions) Act 2008 that all joint tenants said to have died simultaneously will be said to have held as tenants in common in equal shares immediately prior to their deaths this leaving each executor of the wills to deal with the respective shares seperately

Lawexe2012

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

I could be wrong here and way too wrecked to check but as an issue according to s117 the child can put forward a claim in the estate gifted to the husband of his LRS as he is not her biological father, also had mother not acted with moral duty i presume provisions for Julie would take preference over cat & dog home? But she couldn't if he was her biological father. The court would not rule in her favour regardless but steps had to mentioned that could be taken like in case law?

That's exactly what I said. While she could make the application, she wouldn't succeed as the mother had positively failed in her moral duty as put forward by Keane J in Re ABC

Hunchback

Tits - I was thinking to myself that I had at least done 3 and a half questions well, but now that I know I missed the issue of the Dad I am down to three

I hadn't studied for the mortgage question but I ended up having to answer on it. Did anyone mention about the Codes of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears? Was that in any way appropriate?

clocks

Mileyt wrote: »

Omg I cannot believe I misread the question. I thought the husband had left the ma the estate I didn't even mention him I just advised Julie on s117 supported with case law etc and that onus is on her and court more willing to intervene if breakdown of relationships ;(

The husband will get his LRS, but the question was to "Advise Julie". I'm sure enough very few could pass-up showing off what they knew about it; but the client was the daughter. Since her parents were not married at the time of death we can ignore the Father/Husband entirely except for the fact that any grant under s117 could not compete with the LRS.

This is one of those one reads about in the exam reports: answer the question asked!, answer the question asked! , answer the question asked!

Iceman101

Anyone know the official marking scheme for the exams?