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

makemecrazy

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Off chance -

Doing an EU case note on ERTA.

If you had to put it into a bracket, what word would best describe the principal in this case ?

I know it is about exclusive competence, but what is the 'EU SPEAK' that I should use to describe this?

For ETRA, I would say that this case has been described by Hillion as encapsulating "the core principles of the Court’s jurisprudence on competence allocation in the EU system of external relations".

This case concerns the Council adopted a Resolution regarding their Negotiation Procedure for the European Road Transport Agreement (ERTA). The Commission sought to challenge this “Resolution” under A 263 – facing the key point, was it Reviewable? The ECJ Said the Resolution WAS a course of action binding on both the Member States AND the Institution (Council)

The Negotiations had definite legal effect on both the MS and the Institutions and their Relationship. The Court held that any Union act which creates legal effects, irrespective of its nature, is an act sui generis which is subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. Craig and De Burca have wrote the difference between Kramer and ERTA is that ERTA is based on the actual adoption of internal rules.

Hopefully this helps!

Hunchback

makemecrazy wrote: »

For ETRA, I would say that this case has been described by Hillion as encapsulating "the core principles of the Court’s jurisprudence on competence allocation in the EU system of external relations".

This case concerns the Council adopted a Resolution regarding their Negotiation Procedure for the European Road Transport Agreement (ERTA). The Commission sought to challenge this “Resolution” under A 263 – facing the key point, was it Reviewable? The ECJ Said the Resolution WAS a course of action binding on both the Member States AND the Institution (Council)

The Negotiations had definite legal effect on both the MS and the Institutions and their Relationship. The Court held that any Union act which creates legal effects, irrespective of its nature, is an act sui generis which is subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. Craig and De Burca have wrote the difference between Kramer and ERTA is that ERTA is based on the actual adoption of internal rules.

Hopefully this helps!

It does indeed, many thanks for the response Crazy. You put it more artfully than I have in my notes, but I am definitely appreciative of the quote "the core principles of the Court’s jurisprudence on competence allocation in the EU system of external relations" which encapsulates what I knew the case was about, but wasn't sure if I was able to express.

GO TEAM WOOP!

fe1girl

Does anyone have any tips for what to focus on in Tort? I'm starting to seriously panic...

Thanks in advance!

makemecrazy

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

It does indeed, many thanks for the response Crazy. You put it more artfully than I have in my notes, but I am definitely appreciative of the quote "the core principles of the Court’s jurisprudence on competence allocation in the EU system of external relations" which encapsulates what I knew the case was about, but wasn't sure if I was able to express.

GO TEAM WOOP!

No problem, best of luck! I'm not doing EU nor have I it done yet.. so this was a new form of procrasination for me haha!
But its 'nice to be nice' so let the good karma come..

oraghabd

For criminal law - procedures, are people covering all the courts, or would just the Special CC and the Court of Appeal be ok?

lawgal

oraghabd wrote: »

For criminal law - procedures, are people covering all the courts, or would just the Special CC and the Court of Appeal be ok?

Just sticking to those two. Somebody on this a day or two ago made reference to what could be left out (according to griffith I think) and the ordinary courts were Included. What else are you covering? Or more what else aren't you covering is probably better?

legalease2172

Thoughts on leaving out Defamation in Tort? It will hardly come up 3 papers in a row! That would be SLANDEROUS :P

legalease2172

fe1girl wrote: »

Does anyone have any tips for what to focus on in Tort? I'm starting to seriously panic...

Thanks in advance!

Vicarious Liabiility is a must apparently... anything else... your guess is as good as mine! it's just sooo long!

Figsy32

legalease2172 wrote: »

Vicarious Liabiility is a must apparently... anything else... your guess is as good as mine! it's just sooo long!

Was Q3 last sitting vicarious liability or was it something else? I'm leaving out defamation anyway. The stress of trying to get everything into my head for Criminal on Wednesday and Tort Friday is starting.

fe1girl

Figsy32 wrote: »

Was Q3 last sitting vicarious liability or was it something else? I'm leaving out defamation anyway. The stress of trying to get everything into my head for Criminal on Wednesday and Tort Friday is starting.

😭😭😭😭

Question 3 from the last time was Employers liability I think!! Its so long I Just don't know what I can cut

oraghabd

lawgal wrote: »

Just sticking to those two. Somebody on this a day or two ago made reference to what could be left out (according to griffith I think) and the ordinary courts were Included. What else are you covering? Or more what else aren't you covering is probably better?

Like you said, pretty much everything. Some minor topics within topics (Ex: Forgery, Infanticide, child abduction, etc.) Not taking any real risks.

Anything can come up in a PQ but don't feel like I know enough to write enough for any possible essay.

Hunchback

fe1girl wrote: »

Does anyone have any tips for what to focus on in Tort? I'm starting to seriously panic...

Thanks in advance!

It prolly doesn't even need to be said that you need to know every aspect of negligence inside out. Should definitely do trespass to the person as well.

I'm also doing professional neg, nervous shock, occupiers, passing off, vicarious, defective products and nuisance.

I skipped defamation and I feel fine about that because it is just so long. But I also skipped damages and limitations for actions, and I feel a bit dodgy about that because although they have both come up twice in the last two papers, going by the examiners reports he was not happy with the standard of answers, particularly in relation to damages. He said he was surprised at the poor answers in damages (or the amount of people who answered it - I can't remember right now), especially because it is so fundamental to the law of Tort. I think that sometimes examiners will repeatedly examine areas that they feel are not being answered well by students, so this has me worried a bit.

I am going to come out of EU on the 11th and put my earphones in my ears and walk Killiney beach from top to bottom and back again, just to unwind. I am now so anaemic from not going out into the fresh air that its actually quite minging.

corkres1989

oraghabd wrote: »

Like you said, pretty much everything. Some minor topics within topics (Ex: Forgery, Infanticide, child abduction, etc.) Not taking any real risks.

Anything can come up in a PQ but don't feel like I know enough to write enough for any possible essay.

Can I ask why you're leaving out forgery? I think the city lecturer said it wasn't important but I can't remember

mr.craichead

Hey!

I have a quick question and I should be shot for asking this two nights before the exam but can someone tell me what other topics came up on the criminal paper at the last exam.

I see from a previous post that the essay quests were,

1. 2 part essay on criminal negligence m/s and on s5 Criminal Law(Sexual Offences) Act 1993
2. Essay quest on defence of mistake
3. Essay on law of contempt of court.

Last minute futile predictions and I'm missing that paper!

I'd greatly appreciate it!

clocks

fe1chancer wrote: »

It's that time again when am sat here studying and every two minutes I ask my "Do I really want to be a solicitor?"

Or even, after sitting this round of exams, do I still want to do all the OTHER stuff that it will take to become a solicitor ?

Figsy32

mr.craichead wrote: »

Hey!

I have a quick question and I should be shot for asking this two nights before the exam but can someone tell me what other topics came up on the criminal paper at the last exam.

I see from a previous post that the essay quests were,

1. 2 part essay on criminal negligence m/s and on s5 Criminal Law(Sexual Offences) Act 1993
2. Essay quest on defence of mistake
3. Essay on law of contempt of court.

Last minute futile predictions and I'm missing that paper!

I'd greatly appreciate it!

There was an essay on the Presumption of Innocence, and then problem questions about sexual offences, property offences, non-fatal offences and excessive use of force (killing a burgular).

mr.craichead

Sound for that Figsy32, gives me a bit better an idea of what might come up!

fe1girl

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

It prolly doesn't even need to be said that you need to know every aspect of negligence inside out. Should definitely do trespass to the person as well.

I'm also doing professional neg, nervous shock, occupiers, passing off, vicarious, defective products and nuisance.

I skipped defamation and I feel fine about that because it is just so long. But I also skipped damages and limitations for actions, and I feel a bit dodgy about that because although they have both come up twice in the last two papers, going by the examiners reports he was not happy with the standard of answers, particularly in relation to damages. He said he was surprised at the poor answers in damages (or the amount of people who answered it - I can't remember right now), especially because it is so fundamental to the law of Tort. I think that sometimes examiners will repeatedly examine areas that they feel are not being answered well by students, so this has me worried a bit.

I am going to come out of EU on the 11th and put my earphones in my ears and walk Killiney beach from top to bottom and back again, just to unwind. I am now so anaemic from not going out into the fresh air that its actually quite minging.

Thank you!! I'm covering pretty much the same except maybe economic loss too. Fingers crossed for five questions!!! Does anyone know if it's a tough one to pass??

sunshine and showers

Criminal, I've basically everything except Offences Against the State and Offences Against Justice.I

Company, I would dearly love to be ok with this lot:
-Benefits of Incorporation
-Separate Legal Personality
-Corporate Authority
-Directors (including restriction, but not disqualification or fraudulent and reckless trading)
-Borrowing
-Winding Up
-Realisation of Assets.

Thinking that's not gonna cut it, though. best look at Shareholder Protection, Receivership and Transfer of Shares.

Hunchback

fe1girl wrote:

Thank you!! I'm covering pretty much the same except maybe economic loss too. Fingers crossed for five questions!!! Does anyone know if it's a tough one to pass??

Oops - forgot that one - I have it covered though - could be very likely a question on negligent misstatement

dashdoll

Swamped with tort....it's huge! ��

Is this marked OK or is he a tough marker in the exam?

legalease2172

dashdoll wrote: »

Swamped with tort....it's huge! ��

Is this marked OK or is he a tough marker in the exam?

Im in the same boat! It's horrible.. I've heard that a few people have found it's marked quite hard! I don't really know though! This is my first time doing it!

dashdoll

legalease2172 wrote: »

Im in the same boat! It's horrible.. I've heard that a few people have found it's marked quite hard! I don't really know though! This is my first time doing it!

I'm thinking of leaving out defamation amongst a few others. It would hardly come up 3 papers in a row.

Sitting Constitutional too and I've ignored that pretty much so will have three days to try learn that one......😨

legalease2172

dashdoll wrote: »

I'm thinking of leaving out defamation amongst a few others. It would hardly come up 3 papers in a row.

Sitting Constitutional too and I've ignored that pretty much so will have three days to try learn that one......😨

Snap! so far I have Separation of Powers and Personal Rights covered :O

oraghabd

corkres1989 wrote: »

Can I ask why you're leaving out forgery? I think the city lecturer said it wasn't important but I can't remember

Just cause it very rarely comes up really

Fe1r

I've just covered personal rights but I'm confused with natural and constitutional justice rights, it seems more or less the same as due process rights which I've covered separately anyway, did you cover both?

legalease2172 wrote: »

Snap! so far I have Separation of Powers and Personal Rights covered :O

EthanSS

I was just wondering if anybody has notes/a sample answer thet wouldn't mind sending me here on the Realisation of Corporate Assets. I am going to try and cover it in about two hours today as I feel i have left myself too short with just the other 8 topics I have covered.

In exchange, I have typed up notes on:
Incorporation
Directors
Slp
Restriction
Share transfer
Shareholder protection
Corporate Borrowing
Corp Authority

Thanks in advance.

Chels_

makemecrazy wrote: »

From experience, what are the criminal markers expectations like? Would 3 or 5 cases per question be enough? or does one need a lot of cases and commentary as well as accurately knowing the provisions?

His examiner reports are very detailed so I'm confused as to the level of detail required. For example with theft can I just say it is governed by section 4 of the CJA 2001 or would I have to state what this section says and also, fully name the act?

The criminal examiner is very fair IMO. I had him in college and again in the last sitting of criminal and I found that if you have your cases and your provisions you will be sorted!

Hunchback

makemecrazy wrote: »

Hi Chels, by that would you say a lot of cases and the full provision wording or just the exact number and in your own words what it is saying?

The lecturers that I have had have said that it is okay to paraphrase the wording of provisions, with the understanding that some of the words will be key and have particular meaning and would therefore need to be reproduced.

Kcookies2015

Hey guys...

For criminal I'm reading notes now feeling I've either too much or missing something?

Assault
Intoxication
Sexual offences
Classification of crimes/courts of jurisdiction
Theft/robbery/burglary
Murder/manslaughter
Omissions
Provocation/duress
Attempt
Insanity/diminished responsibility

Note these have to be learned yet 😖