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

Robbo

Morbid curiosity here but in the DMC question in Equity, is there some recent case on assisted suicide? I treated the beneficiaries input in the suicide as a "clean hands" issue since we were explicitly told to stay away from any Succession Act concerns.

ShamblesB

Guys what was question 6A about today???

ShamblesB

Robbo wrote: »

Morbid curiosity here but in the DMC question in Equity, is there some recent case on assisted suicide? I treated the beneficiaries input in the suicide as a "clean hands" issue since we were explicitly told to stay away from any Succession Act concerns.

I just said it would prob be void as a matter of public policy as assisting someone with suicide is unlawful. The clean hands thing sounds better!

doing

ShamblesB wrote: »

I just said it would prob be void as a matter of public policy as assisting someone with suicide is unlawful. The clean hands thing sounds better!

But it was Mary who killed Deirdre, not Jane, how would Jane be complicit (as far as criminal law goes) in the assisted suicide? I would have thought Wilkes v Allington (where the precedent was if you do a dmc in apprehension of death, but then die of something else), it's still valid, would cover that?

Since it was a straightforward DMC, I thought the issue was undue influence like Gregg v Kidd, or even Simpson v Simpson as the cancer drugs and pain medication could have addled her mind and she'd no independent legal advice?

When I did property DMC was covered in far more detail than in my Equity book. I can't remember the cases from property but I think there were cases on whether DMC was valid in the case of suicide? I wish I had them at hand yesterday, although I don't know if they fall under property law rather than equity?

KarlKarlson123

I also thought that the manner of death was irrelevant for DMC to arise as per Wilkes v Allington. She had also been contemplating death anyway in a serious way ie terminally ill and was given a month to live - so this satisfied the requirement in Bentham v potterton? Could be wrong

ShamblesB

ShamblesB wrote: »

Guys what was question 6A about today???

Does anyone have an idea? I thought it was the exceptions to the parole evidence rule? For anyone who didn't sit the exam today but might have an idea, the question was...

"Outline the extent to which the courts take into account background information when interpreting contractual documents"

Please help if you can, my head is wrecked trying to figure it out and have an idea if I may have passed or not! All in all it wasn't a bad paper today though

ShamblesB

doing wrote: »

But it was Mary who killed Deirdre, not Jane, how would Jane be complicit (as far as criminal law goes) in the assisted suicide? I would have thought Wilkes v Allington (where the precedent was if you do a dmc in apprehension of death, but then die of something else), it's still valid, would cover that?

Since it was a straightforward DMC, I thought the issue was undue influence like Gregg v Kidd, or even Simpson v Simpson as the cancer drugs and pain medication could have addled her mind and she'd no independent legal advice?

When I did property DMC was covered in far more detail than in my Equity book. I can't remember the cases from property but I think there were cases on whether DMC was valid in the case of suicide? I wish I had them at hand yesterday, although I don't know if they fall under property law rather than equity?

KarlKarlson123 wrote: »

I also thought that the manner of death was irrelevant for DMC to arise as per Wilkes v Allington. She had also been contemplating death anyway in a serious way ie terminally ill and was given a month to live - so this satisfied the requirement in Bentham v potterton? Could be wrong

Well I completely mixed it up, I thought it was Jane who assisted her, so I said it would be void. In Agnew v Belfast Bank a DMC made before suicide was void but that was before it was decriminalised in 1993 so don't know about now... Also in Mills v Shields and Kelly I think it was stated obiter that a DMC would not be invalidated in such circumstances... Not 100% sure though...

Gibbonw2

Ugh, just looked at eu paper again, first time i could bring myself to since that morning. Disgusting inexcusable paper! I answered the conferral of powers question ok (no caselaw and was a bit of a rote type answer), my judicial review answer was relatively ok also, luckily could answer 2 casenotes adequately (microsoft and test aschats) with a few sentences on zambrano. My next answer was q 6 (free movement) and again this was ok, but just ok. My planned application of answering was throw asunder by the obscurity of the questions and with regards part ii, you have 10 minutes to answer each scenario and it took me 3/4 minutes to read that question alone. Really hope he takes into consideration how unfair and obscure that paper was given the legitimate expectancy he has built up with the consistency of past papers. No direct effect, competition law, equality, state aid, an obscure free movement and 8 rather obscure case notes.

Gibbonw2

Oh my 5th answer was the state participation one. In haste i answered this in reference to Altmark and SGEIs. It was an ok answer but not what he asked. Any chance i might get any marks for it in peoples opinion? Really dont know what he was trying to achieve by throwing such an unfair paper. I know the pass rate was high last year but is what he was doing effectively 'proving a point'. I was more confident going into this than any other exam and worked extremely hard but just know ill be hovering in the 45 % bracket at best!

ShamblesB

What did u say about the effect of lisbon reform on judicial review? It was an awful paper, i felt like leaving when I saw it because no question was straight forward, a lot more difficult and convoluted than the past papers... I felt pretty confident going in too, but within the first 5 minutes that confidence disappeared! The only thing you can hope is that since everyone found it so difficult maybe he won't mark it so hard and you will get to the 50

ShamblesB

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

Oh my 5th answer was the state participation one. In haste i answered this in reference to Altmark and SGEIs. It was an ok answer but not what he asked. Any chance i might get any marks for it in peoples opinion? Really dont know what he was trying to achieve by throwing such an unfair paper. I know the pass rate was high last year but is what he was doing effectively 'proving a point'. I was more confident going into this than any other exam and worked extremely hard but just know ill be hovering in the 45 % bracket at best!

I'm not sure how much marks you will get for that but in the reports it always says "at best students can get low marks for a question not asked, depending on how relevant it is" so hopefully you will get some at least! does anyone know how the European Parliaments legislative process differs to that of member states parliaments? I just completely waffled for that part...

Gibbonw2

The post lisbon regulation aspect relates to the fact that the wording of the amendment will possibly lead to a greater leniency by the Ecj in allowing 'non privileged' and non adressed natural and legal persons to challenge eu law. I mentioned that regulations are nonetheless not defined in the treaties (except the rejected constitutional treaty) and that commentators have varied in their opinion whether or not the amendment will lead to a less strict approach to judicial review than that envisaged and relied on by courts post Plaumann.

Gibbonw2

I can understand the need to knock a subject like direct effect out once in a while but to not compensate this by including other popular areas or not distorting the manner of asking questions is unfair and doesnt measure a students overall knowledge of the EU area. For example that conferral of powers question and its reference to the Polish parliament quote. Why decide, when the exam is missing already significantly consistently asked questions to alter the overall genesis of a question which has always been asked in the same format, more or less. I covered over 90% of the curriculum feeling leaving out aspects like brussels regulations, eu criminal law , movement of capital etc could be compensated. But no. He must really have had a grilling after passing 70 % of takers in october.

Fe1stresser

Hi,

Recent addition to this board. Had a rough run at the recent sitting as I attempted 8 but really only had 6 decent exams.

Just wondering if anyone shed any insight into how company is marked? Had 2 great questions, 1 ok and then 2 dismal ones... The last 2 ironically I had actually studied and knew well but within the time constraints and the fact that I answered them last they were very rough. So I'm worried- I answered 5 but....

Also as regards question 8 on the constitutional paper, did anyone else discuss the principle against non- delegation and the significance of " any power" being vested in the minister... I obviously discussed privacy but I thought that that was a large element of the question too..but then i met an acquaintance after the exam ( who is pretty brilliant by all accounts) and he hadn't even discussed it because he thought it was a red herring...

Also as regards the question on fair procedures...I discussed mallakev v mjelr and dellway investments v nama...

Finally re the separation of powers question...I wrote generally about the difficulties with it ( basing it broadly on parts of ECs new book- which is utterly brilliant to be honest) and then in the third paragraph tied it into the judgment in Pringle and the bits of the judgment I could remember about sovereignty...

By the way in the DMC question in equity, I think that the question or something similar appeared a few years ago and the examiner in the reports stated that the question should be approached in a manner analogous to Agnew...

I thought criminal was lovely but a little different to previous but not surprising considering the examiner has mentioned that students appear uncomfortable with certain parts too the course.

Also one final thing, I think tort is marked quite well...if you wrote anything of relevance it will be taken into account...

Any insight that anyone could provide would be welcomed. I'm pretty worried and don't know if I can face doing it all again in October!

Gibbonw2

Attempting 8 at once is very risky. Its difficult enough getting those first 3 but limiting your time management for subjects, not having any breaks between exams and generally having thousands of caselaw muddled up to be applied on an early morning time frame of 3 hours is extremely hard. That doesnt even take into account stress and other external areas affecting your performance! Fair play to you if you handled it though! Hope you got most of them but, trust me, you should be happy even if you got the bare minimum of 3 on first go, giving your study time constraints. I wouldnt be stressing over just two exams if you feel confident with the rest! Just as a matter of interest, while im not saying it was bad advice, did anyone try to dissuade you attempting 8 first time out? I think 4 or 5 is a nice balance, given the nature of the curriculums, as it allows you room for error in 1, even 2 exams.

Fe1stresser

Company and constitutional are two of the 6 I'm hoping I passed. Eu and contract were non starters due the paper and the fact contract was the last exam respectively.

Can people indicated what they wrote for company and constitutional?

In company I did coporate veil, restriction, crystallisation of Charges, directors duties and oppression ( last 2 being horrendous)

In constitutional, i did question 1 and 8 on religion and privacy respectively, sep of power, fair procedures and a case note

I think I've a good shot at tort, criminal and equity...

ShamblesB

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

I can understand the need to knock a subject like direct effect out once in a while but to not compensate this by including other popular areas or not distorting the manner of asking questions is unfair and doesnt measure a students overall knowledge of the EU area. For example that conferral of powers question and its reference to the Polish parliament quote. Why decide, when the exam is missing already significantly consistently asked questions to alter the overall genesis of a question which has always been asked in the same format, more or less. I covered over 90% of the curriculum feeling leaving out aspects like brussels regulations, eu criminal law , movement of capital etc could be compensated. But no. He must really have had a grilling after passing 70 % of takers in october.

I would say that's exactly what happened. They thought the exam was getting too easy! I'm on the same boat as you, covered nearly all the course, left out Brussels reg and fmc and a small few other things and they all came up! Unlucky... I just hope I manage to get 3 because really do not want to have to resit them all! Do you know how the legislative role of the European Parliament differs from that of the MS parliaments? Or how long should a case note answer be? Mine were about 1 page each but that's with huge writing! Just hope I picked up a few marks...

ShamblesB

Fe1stresser wrote: »

Company and constitutional are two of the 6 I'm hoping I passed. Eu and contract were non starters due the paper and the fact contract was the last exam respectively.

Can people indicated what they wrote for company and constitutional?

In company I did coporate veil, restriction, crystallisation of Charges, directors duties and oppression ( last 2 being horrendous)

In constitutional, i did question 1 and 8 on religion and privacy respectively, sep of power, fair procedures and a case note

I think I've a good shot at tort, criminal and equity...

Well done for attempting 8! Very brave! is the directors duty question you're talking about the one with the lease/sale of the mountain?

Fe1stresser

Yep that's the one....

I had done everything re statutory regulation of directors duties and the common law duties and by the time I got to it after wrecking the oppression quest I was in a blind panic...

ShamblesB

Fe1stresser wrote: »

Yep that's the one....

I had done everything re statutory regulation of directors duties and the common law duties and by the time I got to it after wrecking the oppression quest I was in a blind panic...

Yeah, I had a few last questions like that myself. Once you attempt it though you're going to get marks so the main thing seems to be to attempt 5... If you answered your first questions well you may have enough to pass! I'm worried about company too, id say i'm around the 50 mark... Hopefully just above it!

My answer for that question was very brief, I just outlined the duty of disclosure, said it may be a credit transaction withing the meaning of s. 31 1990 act, therefore it could be prohibited and then mentioned about common law duty of avoiding a conflict of interests, ie Regal Hastings v Gulliver, so if he made a profit from the transaction he may have to account to the company. Also, as the directer owned half of the shareholding of the company it would be a connected person withing the meaning of s 27 of the act.

I'm not sure if that's what they were looking for but that's along the lines of my answer! How did u find EU?

KoukiKeith

In last week's melee, it seems I left my EU & Criminal papers in my room in the Red Cow :mad: Could I ask a favour and perhaps ask someone to scan me a copy of their own if they have time.

I don't feel confident that I've seen the back of those exams

Thanks in advance.

Gibbonw2

Dont bother looking at eu again! The more i look at it, the less confident i am!! If you want to get copies just contact law societx with your 3 digit number. Im sure theyl send them down to you. But take a week out, forget about all things fe1. Results long way away so you arent going to get solace stressing over the paper. And best of luck with results. If i get chance ill pm a link with eu exam next week for u

IsaacWunder

Fe1stresser wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone shed any insight into how company is marked? Had 2 great questions, 1 ok and then 2 dismal ones... The last 2 ironically I had actually studied and knew well but within the time constraints and the fact that I answered them last they were very rough. So I'm worried- I answered 5 but....

Courtney is a tough marker. Pass rates typically range between 40 and 60 percent from paper to paper.

If your good/OK questions were problem questions then you're in with a reasonable shot (problem questions being easier to pick up marks compared to essays when you know what you're doing).

doing

Fe1stresser wrote: »

By the way in the DMC question in equity, I think that the question or something similar appeared a few years ago and the examiner in the reports stated that the question should be approached in a manner analogous to Agnew...

Did you get that case from your property manual or your Equity manual?

When I did Property using the Griffith manual DMC was covered in heavy detail and that case definitely rings a bell.

Doing Equity this time, also with the Griffith manual, I noticed that DMC was covered in far less detail, only 4-5 cases I think. I assumed that the guy who wrote the manual didn't include those cases because they fall under "property Law" rather than "the law of Equity" (can anyone tell me if this is true?), but if that isn't the case then the Equity manual is completely inadequate for DMC.


Great effort sitting all 8 in one go.

Fe1stresser

doing wrote: »

Did you get that case from your property manual or your Equity manual?

When I did Property using the Griffith manual DMC was covered in heavy detail and that case definitely rings a bell.

Doing Equity this time, also with the Griffith manual, I noticed that DMC was covered in far less detail, only 4-5 cases I think. I assumed that the guy who wrote the manual didn't include those cases because they fall under "property Law" rather than "the law of Equity" (can anyone tell me if this is true?), but if that isn't the case then the Equity manual is completely inadequate for DMC.


Great effort sitting all 8 in one go.

Actually it's in Hilary delanys book...another poster mentioned it- it's Agnew v Belfast banking corp...a question appeared maybe 2-3 years ago and the examiner mentioned it in her report...

I didn't use any manuals, just textbooks because I found that some of the manuals really oversimplify things and were missing loads of pages.

As for the marking of company law, both my great questions were essay ques- the one of corporate veil which I took from Courtney...I literally just learned a few paragraphs of his book by rote and the second being the restriction of directors...discussed re Tralee beef and Lamb, difference between laffoy j in hc and Hardiman in sc and then fennelly j in re mitek. Also la Moselle, re gasco and I mentioned the anomaly in section 150 re nominee directors....I think I'm screwed!
The rest were pretty weak and off point...typical answering the question I wished he had asked...


40% pass rate? S%#*

Anyone able to shed any light on constitutional?

doing

Fe1stresser wrote: »

Actually it's in Hilary delanys book...another poster mentioned it- it's Agnew v Belfast banking corp...a question appeared maybe 2-3 years ago and the examiner mentioned it in her report...

I didn't use any manuals, just textbooks because I found that some of the manuals really oversimplify things and were missing loads of pages.

Well if I fail then that's definitely the way I'll be approaching that and any other remaining exams - using the books instead of the manuals. Thanks.

Fe1stresser

doing wrote: »

Well if I fail then that's definitely the way I'll be approaching that and any other remaining exams - using the books instead of the manuals. Thanks.

I'm sure you'll be fine! I actually think that I should have used the manuals...I spent two months typing up complicated notes that I couldn't recall in the exam...I used nutshells for criminal supplemented with a bit from Conor hanleys book that was by far the best exam I've sat in years.


Plus I genuinely think that there is no right answer in these kind of scenarios...courts employ different reasoning in factually similar cases all the time...I think that once you identify the issue, address the salient features of the prob question you'll do fine.

I did equity last October but failed because I was short a question ( because I was lazy and didn't do enough work) and I still got 45...so nearly passing on 4 questions...she is not a terrible marker!

doing

Fe1stresser wrote: »

I'm sure you'll be fine! I actually think that I should have used the manuals...I spent two months typing up complicated notes that I couldn't recall in the exam...I used nutshells for criminal supplemented with a bit from Conor hanleys book that was by far the best exam I've sat in years.


Plus I genuinely think that there is no right answer in these kind of scenarios...courts employ different reasoning in factually similar cases all the time...I think that once you identify the issue, address the salient features of the prob question you'll do fine.

I did equity last October but failed because I was short a question ( because I was lazy and didn't do enough work) and I still got 45...so nearly passing on 4 questions...she is not a terrible marker!

Yeah but this Equity manual only had around half the cases on DMC that my property book had, and definitely didn't have as many cases on rescission and rectification as my contract book had. Maybe if you actually go to Griffith the lecturer supplements the Equity manual with handouts with those cases but it's annoying me that I went into the exam and did a question on whether (among other things) DMC is valid in case of suicide and didn't have the caselaw I needed.

Maybe the way to go is to get the books just to check that the manuals haven't left anything out.

When it comes to the marking, it's been my experience that they'll give you a mark in the 40's for almost any old rubbish, but (in contract anyway), they'll want something equivalent to basically 100% to give you the 50% pass. That's the nature of the bell-curve I suppose.

chops018

I wouldn't go near the text books to be honest, although Hilary Delany's book is excellent academic reading, some parts are needlessly long in my opinion.

Actually, I suppose I agree with doing, in the fact that, a text book is a good supplement should you incur any problems with a topic in the manual, you can then refer to the text book and get your extra material or have something clarified.

KoukiKeith

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

Dont bother looking at eu again! The more i look at it, the less confident i am!! If you want to get copies just contact law societx with your 3 digit number. Im sure theyl send them down to you. But take a week out, forget about all things fe1. Results long way away so you arent going to get solace stressing over the paper. And best of luck with results. If i get chance ill pm a link with eu exam next week for u

Wise words indeed. Thankfully, I started back at work today (never thought I'd say that) & it has taken my mind off the exams.

Will mail law soc this week as I never even thought about that. Thanks for your offer!