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

dashdoll

Just been looking at the grid for Constitutional.

How does this look for topics to cover?

Judicial Review
Findings of Unconstitutionalits
Separation of Powers
Equality (hasn't been on the last two papers)
Amendment of the Constitution
Freedom of Expression
Personal Rights
Property Rights
Family/Education
Property Rights
Right to Fair Trial
President, Oireachtas

Thinking of skipping Religion too as it's been on the last two papers.

Am I missing anything vital here?

Fe1r

dashdoll wrote: »

Just been looking at the grid for Constitutional.

How does this look for topics to cover?

Judicial Review
Findings of Unconstitutionalits
Separation of Powers
Equality (hasn't been on the last two papers)
Amendment of the Constitution
Freedom of Expression
Personal Rights
Property Rights
Family/Education
Property Rights
Right to Fair Trial
President, Oireachtas

Thinking of skipping Religion too as it's been on the last two papers.

Am I missing anything vital here?

That's everything I'm covering anyway

Tyler Durdenn

Which Freedoms do people feel are least likely to appear on the EU paper? Have the grind schools given any tips in this regard? Many thanks.

kiwi33

Can some one explain to me in unconstitutionally obtained evidence the principle set down in Dpp v kenny and DPP v CAsh. It has me confused. At this stage im just reading it all as one and the same thing and i dont get what they mean.

corkres1989

kiwi33 wrote: »

I would also do mandatory interlocutory injunctions and quia timet - quia timet is very simple and mandatory interlocutory injunctions the same type questions comes up over and over again so its easy to have an essay prepared

would you also include departure from campus oil?

cup of tea

I swear to god the injunction chapter is like doing a separate fe1 exam in iteself! . Has taken up so much of my time.


I'm a bit confused with September 2014 q3 injunction question re an injunction to stop the fishfarm. It is a prohibatory quia timet injuntion but is it assumed it is interlocatory even though we don't know when the fish farm is going to happen unlike the quarrying questions happening in 2 weeks?

if it is interloc, Campus Oil applies but where does Szabo come into things in an interloc inj bar saying that quia timet and non quia timet are the same test?

Th exam reports mention Szabo but i thought Szabo only applied to perpetual injuctions, is it that Szabo goes to deciding if it is a fair and bona fide question? Im very confused.


For Injuctions I've covered Anton pillar just in case it comes up because it is quick to learn. I've done departure from Campus Oil and I've done instances where You won't get an injunction.

I think i'm going to leave out instances where you will get an injunction and Mareva Injuction simply because i don't have the time.

Tired_Man

kiwi33 wrote: »

Can some one explain to me in unconstitutionally obtained evidence the principle set down in Dpp v kenny and DPP v CAsh. It has me confused. At this stage im just reading it all as one and the same thing and i dont get what they mean.

I think the decision in DPP v Kenny held that in order to constitute a deliberate and conscious breach of a constitutional right it was the act in executing the warrant which had to be deliberate and not the breach of the right itself. Once the act of entering the accused's flat on foot of a defective warrant was deliberate it was irrelevant whether the Gardai inadvertently believed they had lawful authority to enter the flat. Any evidence obtained after that deliberate and conscious breach would be excluded at trial.

That has changed with the decision in JC though. Evidence will now not be excluded if it was obtained in an inadvertent breach of a constitutional right as the term "deliberate and conscious" relates to the state of mind of the Guard obtaining evidence rather than his actions. If the breach is knowing, reckless or grossly negligent then the evidence will be excluded however.

I hope that doesn't sound like utter waffle, it is late.

legalease2172

I did that Equity paper and failed it that sitting. I was confused too :P

It was a quia timet injunction! Which I failed to pick up on too!

cup of tea wrote: »

I swear to god the injunction chapter is like doing a separate fe1 exam in iteself! . Has taken up so much of my time.


I'm a bit confused with September 2014 q3 injunction question re an injunction to stop the fishfarm. It is a prohibatory quia timet injuntion but is it assumed it is interlocatory even though we don't know when the fish farm is going to happen unlike the quarrying questions happening in 2 weeks?

if it is interloc, Campus Oil applies but where does Szabo come into things in an interloc inj bar saying that quia timet and non quia timet are the same test?

Th exam reports mention Szabo but i thought Szabo only applied to perpetual injuctions, is it that Szabo goes to deciding if it is a fair and bona fide question? Im very confused.


For Injuctions I've covered Anton pillar just in case it comes up because it is quick to learn. I've done departure from Campus Oil and I've done instances where You won't get an injunction.

I think i'm going to leave out instances where you will get an injunction and Mareva Injuction simply because i don't have the time.

fionnsci

fionnsci wrote: »

This isn't a real problem of course but is anyone with equity on Monday considering watching McGregor tonight? I know I should sleep but I really want to watch it.

Well that was a mistake.

Hunchback

I woke up just on time for it. I think the biggest mistake would be going back to sleep now. Prolly get up and hit the books in a while

lawgal

Last minute panic question are people covering property rights for cohabitees for equity? Also what have people left out at this stage

OfficeGirl2015

Last minute panic indeed!! Does anyone have what came up on October's equity paper? Desperately trying to cull the topics drastically this morning

jdbarry

OfficeGirl2015 wrote:

Last minute panic indeed!! Does anyone have what came up on October's equity paper? Desperately trying to cull the topics drastically this morning

Q1 Trusteeship
Q2 Interlocutory Injunctions
Q3 Charitable Trusts
Q4 Undue Influence
Q5 Assistance
Q6 a. Re Osaba b. Advancement
Q7 3 certainties
Q8 a. Satisfaction b. Quitclose Trusts c. Maxims

Hunchback

T*ts, I'm not going to have enough time to cover religious freedom in Constitutional even though it was hotly tipped to come up by Independent College. It has been on the last two papers as a topic, BUT it's just "so hot right now" - per Zoolander J

dashdoll

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

T*ts, I'm not going to have enough time to cover religious freedom in Constitutional even though it was hotly tipped to come up by Independent College. It has been on the last two papers as a topic, BUT it's just "so hot right now" - per Zoolander J

Crap, I was also going to leave this out on account of it being on the last two papers in a row. I still probably will.

Did Independent tip anything else at all in particular? Struggling and can't get any peace to study in this house! 😠

kiwi33

corkres1989 wrote: »

would you also include departure from campus oil?

Absolutely it is a question that comes up in the same format time and time again

kiwi33

dashdoll wrote: »

Crap, I was also going to leave this out on account of it being on the last two papers in a row. I still probably will.

Did Independent tip anything else at all in particular? Struggling and can't get any peace to study in this house! 😠

It was in the exam reports that he said that if something is topical right now he doesn't necessarily use that in the paper. He just recent judgements are more important than what is topical

bivo87

Tired_Man wrote: »

I think the decision in DPP v Kenny held that in order to constitute a deliberate and conscious breach of a constitutional right it was the act in executing the warrant which had to be deliberate and not the breach of the right itself. Once the act of entering the accused's flat on foot of a defective warrant was deliberate it was irrelevant whether the Gardai inadvertently believed they had lawful authority to enter the flat. Any evidence obtained after that deliberate and conscious breach would be excluded at trial.

That has changed with the decision in JC though. Evidence will now not be excluded if it was obtained in an inadvertent breach of a constitutional right as the term "deliberate and conscious" relates to the state of mind of the Guard obtaining evidence rather than his actions. If the breach is knowing, reckless or grossly negligent then the evidence will be excluded however.

I hope that doesn't sound like utter waffle, it is late.

i think also in Shaw because a women's life was at risk and he had already admitted to raping and murdering another women, the fact that they detained him for longer than the search warrant allowed. it fell into one of the three exceptions as outlined in DPP v O'Brien (if someones life is in peril). In Kenny it was held that the test was reformulated from O'Brien and it was "whether the violation of the constitutional right was deliberate and conscious".

While that was the reasoning for the decisions at the time in Kenny and Shaw, what Tired man said is right, JC changed the test to be wether the Guards knew, were reckless or grossly negligent as to the possible breach of the accused constitutional right. as far as i am aware, it remains to be seen how the courts will interpret the test in JC...

bivo87

kiwi33 wrote: »

New examiner for what topic??

EU law i think???

corkres1989

kiwi33 wrote: »

Absolutely it is a question that comes up in the same format time and time again

You wouldn't know or anyone what way it came up last year? It confused me as I knew about departure from campus oil but didn't know the main mandatory interloc part so it let me down!

bivo87

Constitutional Law people.. Is there any recent judgements that i should be aware of? i know that Denis O'Brien is a hot topic in the courts at the moment so could be topical and maybe the president as he nearly recently referred a bill to the SC but i can't think of any others. i know the examiner has been critical in exam reports that we need to be aware of important recent decisions.

fe1girl

bivo87 wrote: »

Constitutional Law people.. Is there any recent judgements that i should be aware of? i know that Denis O'Brien is a hot topic in the courts at the moment so could be topical and maybe the president as he nearly recently referred a bill to the SC but i can't think of any others. i know the examiner has been critical in exam reports that we need to be aware of important recent decisions.

DPP v JC - the redevelopment of the exclusionary rule; the Bederev Case - principles and policies test in operation; PP v HSE - potentially an abortion / right to bodily integrity question; Governor of X Prison v P McD - right to self-determination / right to die; Jordan v Minister for Children - referenda

bivo87

fe1girl wrote: »

DPP v JC - the redevelopment of the exclusionary rule; the Bederev Case - principles and policies test in operation; PP v HSE - potentially an abortion / right to bodily integrity question; Governor of X Prison v P McD - right to self-determination / right to die; Jordan v Minister for Children - referenda

thats brilliant thanks :-)

Kcookies2015

Equity -
Tips from independent were

1 Q on
Strong v bird - note
Donatia mortis causa - note

PQ on undue influence

Charitable & non charitable trusts - due to lack of knowledge in last sitting on cypres doctrine - possible exact question again

Anton pillar order Q due & briefly learn quia timet injunctions

PQ on specific performance involving contracts for service

Resulting trusts - quistclose look at

Essay on trusteeship

Possible PQ on tracing

I feel I'm still leaving out something that's sure to come up... Any other ideas of what to cover? Steam running out here big time

OfficeGirl2015

Beginning to feel like there's no point turning up tomorrow...everything keeps falling out of my head as soon as im done on the subject!!!
Thanks for the tips though....hopefully they're right!!!!

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

Equity -
Tips from independent were

1 Q on
Strong v bird - note
Donatia mortis causa - note

PQ on undue influence

Charitable & non charitable trusts - due to lack of knowledge in last sitting on cypres doctrine - possible exact question again

Anton pillar order Q due & briefly learn quia timet injunctions

PQ on specific performance involving contracts for service

Resulting trusts - quistclose look at

Essay on trusteeship

Possible PQ on tracing

I feel I'm still leaving out something that's sure to come up... Any other ideas of what to cover? Steam running out here big time

HappySlappy123

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

Equity -
Tips from independent were

1 Q on
Strong v bird - note
Donatia mortis causa - note

PQ on undue influence

Charitable & non charitable trusts - due to lack of knowledge in last sitting on cypres doctrine - possible exact question again

Anton pillar order Q due & briefly learn quia timet injunctions

PQ on specific performance involving contracts for service

Resulting trusts - quistclose look at

Essay on trusteeship

Possible PQ on tracing

I feel I'm still leaving out something that's sure to come up... Any other ideas of what to cover? Steam running out here big time

Good chance there'll be tracing and proprietary estoppel going by the grid imo

Kcookies2015

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

Good chance there'll be tracing and proprietary estoppel going by the grid imo

Lecturer said proprietary estoppel unlikely but have an idea of it. Have notes so will skim over it! Roll on Friday : (

Kcookies2015

If anyone wants the independent night before notes for equity mail me and I'll forward them on : )

HappySlappy123

If someone could clarify the status of the three different bequests in Q.3 on charitable trusts and the cypres doctrine I'd be very grateful, really struggling to get my head around it.

€2m was to be used by the executor in such manner as he sees fit to promote the playing of football in rural communities.

€1m was to be used by the executor to ensure the provision of playing fields in his hometown.

€100k bequeathed to his executor for the purpose of organising a campaign to promote the introduction of legislation criminalising certain conduct on the playing pitch.

All contributions of wisdom greatly appreciated!

Yohnathan

Does anyone know if the addition of the 2009 Act in Property means that there may be a shift in exam focus? I passed it the last time around but unfortunately I have to repeat it as I got 49 in Tort and only sat three exams ;-(
Any help would be much appreciated!