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

Hunchback

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

This might be a nice addition to a question on vicarious liability for those doing Tort. Just came up on my Facebook.

Unbelievable!!!


Sending you cyber hugs

Fe1r

I can't focus at all today.....I'm learning freedom of expression in constitutional and have just got to a section on ECHR jurisprudence....someone pleas tell me I can leave it out?!

dashdoll

Has anyone heard that anything in particular is tipped for Tort this sitting?

Finding it to be an absolute nightmare even reading through it...it's huge. Not retaining any of these cases!

Kcookies2015

dashdoll wrote: »

Has anyone heard that anything in particular is tipped for Tort this sitting?

Finding it to be an absolute nightmare even reading through it...it's huge. Not retaining any of these cases!

Nervous shock may be due an appearance
Economic loss
Vicarious liability - employer/employee & 3rd party PQ possibility
Duty of care PQ more likely
Occupiers liability due - trespasser/recreational user
Little hints given from last tutorial in independent

dashdoll

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

Nervous shock may be due an appearance
Economic loss
Vicarious liability - employer/employee & 3rd party PQ possibility
Duty of care PQ more likely
Occupiers liability due - trespasser/recreational user
Little hints given from last tutorial in independent

Thanks a million.

corkres1989

OfficeGirl2015 wrote: »

I did voluntary manslaughter, the defences of self-defence/ reasonable force in relation to an anticipated attack and voluntary intoxication and threw in a tiny bit of crime of basic intent...and LRC recommendation that low level violence be prosecuted as assault not MS when completely unforeseen (DPP-v-Byrne)...thinking now I got it wrong!

self defence definitely could have been thrown in but I just didn't have the time! i had very little to say about intox so I'm dissapointed... shoulda done Ques 7 as j new the special criminal court just not enough for false imprisonment...only enough for question 3....

Hunchback

Fe1r wrote: »

I can't focus at all today.....I'm learning freedom of expression in constitutional and have just got to a section on ECHR jurisprudence....someone pleas tell me I can leave it out?!

ECHR jurisprudence is an absolute must for this topic

say Independent Colleges

Figsy32

More tired than I thought I would be after criminal. The extra day is a god send for tort. Still, it's a lot of learning to get done. Have notes on most things but thinking of focusing on:

Negligence
Medical Prof Neg
Nervous Shock
Economic Loss
Vicarious Liabilty
Occupiers Liability
Trespass to the Person
Passing Off
Liability for Animals

That's enough? Glad to hear criminal went well for most people! Wasn't the worst paper but lots of bits and bobs. An extra half hour would have been great

Fe1r

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

ECHR jurisprudence is an absolute must for this topic

say Independent Colleges

Thanks for the heads up! I've learned a few cases for it now just can't do anymore

Kcookies2015

Company is slowly making me very sleepy ....
Are people covering 2 part question a/b style for oppression and the disregard of shareholders interest?
S31 contract solicitor style q like 2013 paper...
Watching tutorial online and only noticed him say be prepared for this to appear

fe1chancer

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

Company is slowly making me very sleepy ....
Are people covering 2 part question a/b style for oppression and the disregard of shareholders interest?
S31 contract solicitor style q like 2013 paper...
Watching tutorial online and only noticed him say be prepared for this to appear

March or October 2013? Finding it very confusing reading old exam answers and they are all answered on 1963 act and having to go back and check the relevant provision in the 2014 act!

Kcookies2015

fe1chancer wrote: »

March or October 2013? Finding it very confusing reading old exam answers and they are all answered on 1963 act and having to go back and check the relevant provision in the 2014 act!

I don't have paper with me : ( it's a question that comes up frequently relating to a solicitor also being a shareholder. The two other shareholders go on to seek legal advice from a larger practice and the shareholder seeks to enforce a contract under S31.
It's split then into advising regarding oppression and disregarding shareholders interests!!! It comes up with irrelievible breakdown (share buy out/winding up).....,

Meant to say it falls under S212 of new Act

kiwi33

fe1chancer wrote: »

March or October 2013? Finding it very confusing reading old exam answers and they are all answered on 1963 act and having to go back and check the relevant provision in the 2014 act!

It's an absolute pain in the hole!!

HappySlappy123

Figsy32 wrote: »

More tired than I thought I would be after criminal. The extra day is a god send for tort. Still, it's a lot of learning to get done. Have notes on most things but thinking of focusing on:

Negligence
Medical Prof Neg
Nervous Shock
Economic Loss
Vicarious Liabilty
Occupiers Liability
Trespass to the Person
Passing Off
Liability for Animals

That's enough? Glad to hear criminal went well for most people! Wasn't the worst paper but lots of bits and bobs. An extra half hour would have been great

I'm with you on that, although I'm having a quick look over damages and limitations as well, examiner report said they've been answered poorly so I wouldn't be surprised to see one or both of them on the paper in some shape or form.

Just on negligence, I'm debating leaving out causation as it's such a long topic and I feel it's the safest option to leave out - a bad move?

Kcookies2015

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

I'm with you on that, although I'm having a quick look over damages and limitations as well, examiner report said they've been answered poorly so I wouldn't be surprised to see one or both of them on the paper in some shape or form.

Just on negligence, I'm debating leaving out causation as it's such a long topic and I feel it's the safest option to leave out - a bad move?

I'd say you will need to cover causation as you have to prove this with negligence problem questions along with proving defendant was negligent. It's vital in medical negligence and employer negligence

clocks

fe1chancer wrote: »

If there is one thing i learned from todays exam is don't join a rugby team!!!

Based on the radio today there appears to be a general propaganda campaign against rugby; all I can say is it is the greatest game ever played by man

fionnsci

The company exam grid I have says there were 3 Receivership question in October 2012, surely that's a load of hoop? Would be in trouble if that was the paper.

Kcookies2015

fionnsci wrote: »

The company exam grid I have says there were 3 Receivership question in October 2012, surely that's a load of hoop? Would be in trouble if that was the paper.

It's on my grid too. Q6,7&8 October 2012
Looking at paper 6 was advise liquidator where fixed charge over premises which contained power to appoint receiver was not registered 1/2 question
Q7 was Pari Pasu principle - creditors on equal footing
Q8 PQ steps to bring petition to have examiner appointed , likelihood and success in having examiner appointed & consequence for the company and its creditors when examiner appointed

They must have all been in one chapter in the manual r something.
Independent suggests a 3 part compare and contrast question of the 3 likely this year

dashdoll

Figsy32 wrote: »

More tired than I thought I would be after criminal. The extra day is a god send for tort. Still, it's a lot of learning to get done. Have notes on most things but thinking of focusing on:

Negligence
Medical Prof Neg
Nervous Shock
Economic Loss
Vicarious Liabilty
Occupiers Liability
Trespass to the Person
Passing Off
Liability for Animals

That's enough? Glad to hear criminal went well for most people! Wasn't the worst paper but lots of bits and bobs. An extra half hour would have been great

I'm going to cover

Negligence
Nervous Shock
Economic Loss
Professional Negligence
Vicarious Liability
Occupiers Liability
Trespass to the person
Nuisance
Passing Off
Defamation
Defective Products

I should probably also do Damages/Limitation but won't have time tomorrow and have never even read them.

Yohnathan

Hi, I am just wondering if anyone who has just done a preparatory course for Property Law knows if there has been any changes to the syllabus for this set of exams. I note that an additional legislation has been added to the list of Legislation allowed in during the exam. I have the Succession Act but I am wondering if I need the 2009 Act which has been added. Thanks.

EthanSS

Guys, I get confused easily between prob Q's on Shareholder protection and those on share transfer. Any idea how to avoid this happening tomorrow? It's just the facts are always so similiar.

Thanks.

OfficeGirl2015

Beginning to really regret my decision to not take study time off. Sitting in work worrying about tomorrow's exam with no reasonable amount of time to revise and with a head still chock full of Criminal caselaw!!!

Figsy32

What was the company paper like?

EthanSS

I really felt Company was AWFUL.

I didn't cover Ultra Vires as assumed it woldn't arise. I also hadn't that directors essay covered either. And I couldn't think of the Reform essay wither.

So, I was left with five Q's to do:
SLP
Directors Duties
Reckless and Fraudulent Trading
Restriction
Charges (I wrote two paragraphs of BS on this).

So, I did 4 ok Q's and a dreadful dreadful 5th. I know I failed it for sure. I wouldn't mind but I spent ages working on Company and now it's all down the drain. So, so dejected.

Simplyliving04

Ya, felt it was a weird paper also. Didn't do ultra vires or have a clue how the new act improved the old since I ignored the old now defunct law when studying. Meant that choice was fairly and had to five from six then.

Kcookies2015

Paper was terrible , typical Courtney : (

Ultra vires & full question on five main reforms introduced by new act!!

Answered 3 ok 1 badly and last one terribly! Definite fail ....

Complete waste of time!

ChloeElla

Definitely a weird paper, brought in comparisons to the old legislation in three questions which was unexpected. Was I the only one pleasantly surprised by the photocopy of the Act on my desk?

Hunchback

Well, that was crap.

I am sure there are plenty of people out there who will say that this was a decent paper etc, but just, uuuuuggghh

EDIT - I'm not saying it WAS a horrible paper, but I definitely did a horrible job.

Anzh El

For anyone doing tort tomorrow, new judgment on statue of limitation from the Court of Appeal which overturned the decision of the High Court in Brandley and WJB Developments Limited v Hubert Deane T/A Hubert Deane & Associates and John Lohan T/A John Lohan Ground Works Contractors (High Court 2010/10994P and Appeal 2015/245). Good review from LK Shields.

Hunchback

My mind went blank -

On the section 158(1) being the cornerstone of company law, was it off the mark to bring in the duties of a director?

I mentioned that how under s.31, once you subscribe to the constitution of the company you are bound to them in their entirety, and then I ran out of steam and started rambling on about how directors don't have to declare dividends etc. etc - worried this was totally off the mark.

And on the two problem questions about loaning money - question 4 - the one with the car company - was it correct to bring in section 238 here in relation to substantial property transactions? Because I was kind of thrown by question 8 which seemed very similar. What was question 8 about - was it a question about liquidation or section 238?

Confused