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

Kcookies2015

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

S. 2 assault in the NFOATPA 1997 puts the max fine for the offence at £1,500

My notes from a couple of years ago put the max fine at @1,900

Can anyone confirm if this is correct? It seems like almost too round of a figure

It's just the irish punt multiplied by 1.27 to convert to euro which is €1905 and they usually just round it off : )

DaveKit

I cut:

Freedom of est, services and capital.
Equality
Private international law.

Is that too much or is it a calculated risk?

This course is endless!!

clocks

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

Does anybody have any idea as to what the pass rates are like for the different subjects? Have heard that Property can be up to 80%, Equity to 90% while others can be down around the 50% mark?

Serious case of looking for hope down as many avenues as possible!

As far as I know there are no official statistics—those approximations are perhaps from grind schools talking to their students. In the exam reports I have read, only Mr Travers SC, formerly of the EU law exam, gave detailed information : 76% passed at the last sitting. The man reason for failure was answering less than 5 questions. The March 2015 report in Constitutional Law notes that a "substantial majority" passed the exam; of those there were a good number of high grades, equivalent to a 1st. In Criminal the pass rate was "healthy" whilst in Tort law it remained "consistent with previous years".

Mileyt

DaveKit wrote:

Freedom of est, services and capital. Equality Private international law.

DaveKit wrote:

I cut:

DaveKit wrote:

Is that too much or is it a calculated risk?

DaveKit wrote:

This course is endless!!

Hi yeah I am cutting equality ..Union citizenship and private law ..anyone any other tips on what could be cut or what might not be coming up....

dashdoll

I'm thinking of leaving out State Aid also. It came up in the last sitting but I don't know!

Lawstudent007

So I am now officially freaked about Eu and whether I have enough covered!!! I'm doing:

Sources of eu law
Supremacy & Direct effect & MS Liabilty
Preliminary reference
FMOG
FMOW
Citizenship
Competition 101 + 102
Case note

What's everyone's opinion on the above, do you reckon I have enough? Seriously freaking out here and feel like crying!

FE1 student

I have been crying all morning about EU. I don't think any of us can cover enough the course is massive. Just keep the head down try to cover as much as you can over the next two days. It really is out of our hands after that.

Iceman101

completely agree, way too much content, just pick your topics and know them. Not much more you can do. Remember a pass is all thats needed, dont be worried about academic commentary. While sample answers can be helpful, whats even more helpful is remembering that those answers are 100% standard. You need 5 half assed answers and your golden. Heads down, get the $hit into your head and throw it back out on wed.

Hunchback

Anyone have any thoughts on today's criminal paper? I thought it was a fair paper myself. Very heavy on NFOATP Act 1997, which suited me. I was almost caught out by the Murder/Lawful Use of Force question, and had to scribble out two pages that I wrote on burglary - duh!

Anyway, for me I think it hangs in the balance. I did three and a half decent questions, one and a half weak.

Kcookies2015

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Anyone have any thoughts on today's criminal paper? I thought it was a fair paper myself. Very heavy on NFOATP Act 1997, which suited me. I was almost caught out by the Murder/Lawful Use of Force question, and had to scribble out two pages that I wrote on burglary - duh!

Anyway, for me I think it hangs in the balance. I did three and a half decent questions, one and a half weak.

It was a very fair but intense paper, alot of offences held within each problem question! I did the same took all the steps to burglary and copped at the last minute was reasonable force and ranted on mcNally and the traveller case on reloading the gun but he had been threatened previously and Liam in this instance Hadnt known they even had a weapon! Awful long winded wouldn't like to correct my paper! Answered 5 but one was very dodgy!

Mileyt

Anyone use constitutional nutshell to get overview of some topics or is it useless ... Thinking of covering
Sop
Interpretation
Institutions
Due course / right to silence / jury / trisl
In full
Then briefly
Fundamental rights / unemum rights / freedom of expression

I have a day and a half lol so it's an attempt really
Any tips on what may or may not come up?

Mileyt

Lawstudent007 wrote:

So I am now officially freaked about Eu and whether I have enough covered!!! I'm doing:[/quote

Don't stress five half assed answers will pass you heard he easy marker so defo cover the main topics and overview others you'll be grand

shy-tall-knight

Thought the essay questions were nice and straightforward if you had enough done on them, didn't require a huge amount of thinking. Was very happy to see contempt as a full question.

Problem question's were tricky, couldn't remember the number of people needed to constitute a riot or what exactly needed to happen in order to satisfy the charge.

Overall I thought it was pretty fair and hopefully a pass.

oraghabd

Are people studying rescission for equity? Has anyone done the Q.1 October 2011?

If so, would you talk about undue influence and 3rd party, RBS v Ertridge, etc? Or just actual UI and class 2a and 2b presumptions?

spaz_hawk

shy-tall-knight wrote: »

Thought the essay questions were nice and straightforward if you had enough done on them, didn't require a huge amount of thinking. Was very happy to see contempt as a full question.

Problem question's were tricky, couldn't remember the number of people needed to constitute a riot or what exactly needed to happen in order to satisfy the charge.

Overall I thought it was pretty fair and hopefully a pass.

Has anyone any idea how generous the criminal examiner is? I answered five questions but a lot of it was all over the place. Looking for a bit of a lift although not focusing too much on what happened in today's exam at the same stage.

Figsy32

spaz_hawk wrote: »

Has anyone any idea how generous the criminal examiner is? I answered five questions but a lot of it was all over the place. Looking for a bit of a lift although not focusing too much on what happened in today's exam at the same stage.

Had the examiner for a project in UL this year and the marks for everyone were pretty generous so I'd presume that will apply here too. Couldn't imagine him being a tough marker with the type of guy he is. Incredibly sound.

Christy_C

spaz_hawk wrote: »

Has anyone any idea how generous the criminal examiner is? I answered five questions but a lot of it was all over the place. Looking for a bit of a lift although not focusing too much on what happened in today's exam at the same stage.

Had Shane Kilcommins in UCC. Very fair easy marker.

Kcookies2015

spaz_hawk wrote: »

Has anyone any idea how generous the criminal examiner is? I answered five questions but a lot of it was all over the place. Looking for a bit of a lift although not focusing too much on what happened in today's exam at the same stage.

Just finished in UL incredibly nice man and definitely gives the maximum marks possible! So I'd say no matter what condition structure as long as valid law was inserted everyone should be fine

Hunchback

Please God the man doesn't read the above remarks and decide to defy expectation

Although, it is great to hear

Kcookies2015

What's everyone covering for Equity? Anton Pillar due to appear? ...... Covering specific performance, Mareva, quistclose, presumption of advancement, charitable trusts, undue influence, proprietary estoppel... Is that enough? Seriously drained after sitting 3 so far

EthanSS

Guys, I'm very confused regarding Pringle v Govt of Ireland. In what chapter of the EU manual would it be in? What is its main point? Thanks.

Kcookies2015

EthanSS wrote: »

Guys, I'm very confused regarding Pringle v Govt of Ireland. In what chapter of the EU manual would it be in? What is its main point? Thanks.

Judgment delivered by Supreme Court on 31/7/2012, [2012] IESC 47

EU Law – constitutionality – ratification of ESM Treaty – whether Council Decision 2011/199/EU invalid – ordinary revision procedure or simplified revision procedure – infringement of EU Law – preliminary reference to CJEU.

This was an appeal of a decision of the High Court, delivered by Laffoy J on 17 July 2012.

The appellant, Thomas Pringle TD, put a number of questions to the Supreme Court: whether the ESM (European Stability Mechanism) Treaty involves a relinquishment of sovereignty to such a degree that the treaty falls foul of the Constitution and therefore needs a referendum to be ratified; whether the court should refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) the question of whether Ireland’s ratification of the ESM Treaty was incompatible with the EU Treaties; and whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to prevent the State from ratifying the ESM Treaty, pending final judgment on the matter.

The court considered that the ESM did not involve ceding sovereignty to such an extent that it amounted to a breach of the Constitution. The court viewed it as an agreement to pursue a defined policy of the government rather than an inappropriate transfer of executive powers.

The court agreed to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The appellant submitted that European Council Decision 2011/199/EU, which amends the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is invalid. He claimed that the amendment provided by the Council Decision should have been made by the ordinary revision procedure rather than the simplified revision procedure. He further argued that it is an infringement of the EU Treaties and the general principles of EU Law. The court referred these questions to the CJEU.

It further asked if the entitlement of a Member State to enter into and ratify the ESM Treaty is dependant on the entry into force of the Decision. The court requested that the CJEU produce its judgment under an accelerated procedure due to the urgency of the proceedings and the risk that the delay poses to the stability of the euro zone.

The court refused the appellant’s application for an injunction, remarking that if the appellant is ultimately successful this will be a sufficient remedy. It noted that if an injunction was granted, it could mean significant and irreversible damage for Ireland’s economy and the euro zone.

FE1 student

EthanSS wrote: »

Guys, I'm very confused regarding Pringle v Govt of Ireland. In what chapter of the EU manual would it be in? What is its main point? Thanks.

It's not in my EU manual or any of my prep course notes. Which is very odd given how much it comes up.

EthanSS

Thanks so much KcCookies.

Kcookies2015

EthanSS wrote: »

Thanks so much KcCookies.

Anything to distract me from Equity : )

codoherty16

spaz_hawk wrote: »

Has anyone any idea how generous the criminal examiner is? I answered five questions but a lot of it was all over the place. Looking for a bit of a lift although not focusing too much on what happened in today's exam at the same stage.

He is a lecturer in UL, did my law degree there and he is supposed to be a fair marker.

coco97

Hey guys, just wondering about the case note q for EU/constitutional.

i reckon i'll have to do it cause I might get stung with topics but I don't think i'd be able to write that much on any case to be honest. How long are we looking at for a case note q and do you go into much detail about the relevant law or just keep it to the facts and outcome of the court?

Kinda stuck on it so any help appreciated. Thanks!

Also Shane Kilcommins is a fair marker, came out of criminal in March and realised that I'd mixed up ALL the defences. Convinced I'd failed and got about 60 so keep the chin up.

Also ALMOST THERE.

lawgirl23

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

What's everyone covering for Equity? Anton Pillar due to appear? ...... Covering specific performance, Mareva, quistclose, presumption of advancement, charitable trusts, undue influence, proprietary estoppel... Is that enough? Seriously drained after sitting 3 so far

Both Anton Pillar and Quia Timet due, although Mareva was repeated in Oct 13 and Mar 14. Undue Influence a regular as is trusteeship. Cy-Pres and Purpose Trusts both due too, as is satisfaction and Ouistclose...

Hunchback

Wow, if the paper comes up tomorrow as you have described it there I am BEYOND ****ed

XxMCRxBabyxX

lawgirl23 wrote: »

Both Anton Pillar and Quia Timet due, although Mareva was repeated in Oct 13 and Mar 14. Undue Influence a regular as is trusteeship. Cy-Pres and Purpose Trusts both due too, as is satisfaction and Ouistclose...

I don't like the look of this at all at all...