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

corkres1989

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

I was told Mareva over anton pillar. Does anyone think I'm mad just doing Mareva, anton and quia timet??

makemecrazy

What are people covering for Equity?

I am doing
Charitable
Specific Performance
Rectification
Estoppel
Marvea and QT injunctions only
Undue Influence
Presumption of Ad
Strong v Bird

Can anyone add another 1 or 2 please?

kiwi33

bivo87 wrote: »

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...

What is this JC case you speak of? I dont seem to have it

Kcookies2015

corkres1989 wrote: »

I was told Mareva over anton pillar. Does anyone think I'm mad just doing Mareva, anton and quia timet??

Independent said Anton is due a run its been a while and still topical and mareva has come up too often! I'm covering the 3 also

Kcookies2015

makemecrazy wrote: »

What are people covering for Equity?

I am doing
Charitable
Specific Performance
Rectification
Estoppel
Marvea and QT injunctions only
Undue Influence
Presumption of Ad
Strong v Bird

Can anyone add another 1 or 2 please?

Tracing as a problem Q & Donatia mortis causa - note maybe? I've cut mine down but reading this all eve I've added everything back in : (

corkres1989

makemecrazy wrote: »

no but why are you doing Anton can I ask? that is so rare? I was just going to do Quia Timet and Mareva since the mandatory one came up in last sitting it won't again?

Going to throw in anton as its a prediction and easy enough! I'd agree mandatory wouldn't be that likely....

lawgal

Can anyone tell me the topical cases in anton piller? Have there been some new cases lately?

fe1girl

kiwi33 wrote: »

What is this JC case you speak of? I dont seem to have it

DPP v JC is a case from 2015 that was part of the fallout from DPP v Damache and the constitutionality of s29 of the OASA 1939 (as amended in 1976).

The case effectively reformulated the exclusionary rule as it was in DPP v Kenny. Basically, the court said that unless there are extraordinary circumstances, the courts have the discretion to admit unconstitutionally obtained evidence.

So, if there is a mistake on a warrant (like in the Curtin case where the search warrant had the wrong street name on it), then it may be admitted as evidence. But where there is no warrant in existence at all, or there was mala fides in obtaining the unconstitutionally obtained evidence, then the evidence won't be admitted.

Kcookies2015

lawgal wrote: »

Can anyone tell me the topical cases in anton piller? Have there been some new cases lately?

Denis O Brien v Red Flag Consulting ltd

O Brien sought Anton Pillar Order last October but was unsuccessful due to Kearns J stating he was not inclined due to the draconian nature of the order requested.

However he did give an interim but extensive order whereby Red Flag have to preserve the documents held in dossier in which were requested on the order application!

Kcookies2015

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

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!

Ok so my take is its relating to the "beneficial to the community" and the public benefit requirements -

S3(2) 2009 act - must be for public benefit

S3(7) 2009 act - factors deciding if for public benefit or not

S3(11) - sets out list of charitable purposes that are for benefit of community - gifts for sporting or recreational use according to Tobin are not recognised under this section

Recent case - national tourism development authority v Coughlan (2009) - golf courses recreational so no charitable status given

Cypres Doctrine- applied only in relation to charitable trusts whereby it has become impossible or impractical to apply the trust property to the the charitable purposes specified by doner if courts allow jurisdiction they will apply the trust as near as possible to the purposes set out by doner.

S47 Charities Act 1961 - broadens circumstances in which court may exercise jurisdiction

kiwi33

fe1girl wrote: »

DPP v JC is a case from 2015 that was part of the fallout from DPP v Damache and the constitutionality of s29 of the OASA 1939 (as amended in 1976).

The case effectively reformulated the exclusionary rule as it was in DPP v Kenny. Basically, the court said that unless there are extraordinary circumstances, the courts have the discretion to admit unconstitutionally obtained evidence.

So, if there is a mistake on a warrant (like in the Curtin case where the search warrant had the wrong street name on it), then it may be admitted as evidence. But where there is no warrant in existence at all, or there was mala fides in obtaining the unconstitutionally obtained evidence, then the evidence won't be admitted.

Sweet holy **** oscar I can't believe I didn't have that case! Just to double check though i thought curtin case was were the date in the warrant had expired and AG v O'Brien was the one with the wrong address. It probably isnt that big of a deal I just want to make sure i have my facts straight .

HappySlappy123

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

Ok so my take is its relating to the "beneficial to the community" and the public benefit requirements -

S3(2) 2009 act - must be for public benefit

S3(7) 2009 act - factors deciding if for public benefit or not

S3(11) - sets out list of charitable purposes that are for benefit of community - gifts for sporting or recreational use according to Tobin are not recognised under this section

Recent case - national tourism development authority v Coughlan (2009) - golf courses recreational so no charitable status given

Cypres Doctrine- applied only in relation to charitable trusts whereby it has become impossible or impractical to apply the trust property to the the charitable purposes specified by doner if courts allow jurisdiction they will apply the trust as near as possible to the purposes set out by doner.

S47 Charities Act 1961 - broadens circumstances in which court may exercise jurisdiction

The way I see it (and I'm very unsure on this) is that it could be argued it falls under s.3(11) due to advancement of community development/volunteering/health and that it differs from Coughlan because in that case a fee had to be paid to use the golf course and so couldn't be charitable in nature.

The €2m for development and promotion of the game could be allowed because anyone in the community can avail of it, similar position for the €1m devised for the provision of playing fields, but that the €100k would fail because it could be seen as political in nature.

However, by applying the cypres doctrine, that €100k could be put to a use at the court's discretion for a use similar to what the donor wished.

Am I barking up completely the wrong tree?

Tired_Man

kiwi33 wrote: »

Sweet holy **** oscar I can't believe I didn't have that case! Just to double check though i thought curtin case was were the date in the warrant had expired and AG v O'Brien was the one with the wrong address. It probably isnt that big of a deal I just want to make sure i have my facts straight .

Yeah you're right there

lawgal

Does anyone know cases for specific performance of personal services? Have the other instances of SP but don't seen to have for this? Thanks

Mileyt

Constitution case governer of x prison v PmcD ..there is nothing on Google on this case can anyone pretty please advise where to find? Or details on the right to die case thanks so much in advance!

OfficeGirl2015

lawgal wrote: »

Does anyone know cases for specific performance of personal services? Have the other instances of SP but don't seen to have for this? Thanks

Re courts reluctance to force people to work together :
Ch giles -v- Morris 1972 action for p services will not be barred , question for the court 're specific circumstances and balance usually falling on one side will not make it a rule against

Hill v- .ca Parsons 1972 where dismissal at trade union insistence and employer and employee still happy to work together will be allowed

cup of tea

lawgal wrote: »

Does anyone know cases for specific performance of personal services? Have the other instances of SP but don't seen to have for this? Thanks

Ludley v Wagner

Warner Brothers v Nelson

Lift Manufacturers Ltd

CH Giles and co v morris

Hunchback

Out of curiosity - does anyone else use that exam memory technique where you write a journey with all these different scenarios happening along it that trigger the memory of the point you are trying to remember?

Itchy Lot

No, but that sounds interesting - is there somewhere with more information on it? I have a feeling that this isn't going to be the last time that I have to learn off these particular set of cases....

dashdoll

Any thoughts on A45 Socio Economic Rights for Constitutional. I know one of the prep courses tipped it a few sittings ago as itsoon topical and there was a recent Constitutional Review Group report on it. Wondering if this has been mentioned by any recently as a possible qs?

Hunchback

Itchy Lot wrote: »

No, but that sounds interesting - is there somewhere with more information on it? I have a feeling that this isn't going to be the last time that I have to learn off these particular set of cases....

Check it out, I'm sure you can buy it online- there is a simple but amazing little book called 'How to Pass Exams' written by world memory champion Dominik O'Brien. I would highly recommend it!

bivo87

kiwi33 wrote: »

What is this JC case you speak of? I dont seem to have it

DPP v JC - in relation to unconstitutionally obtained evidence under article 38.1. its a 2015 Supreme Court Decision - dwelling was searched on foot of a section 29 warrant which the accused was subsequently arrested. between the time of the arrest and the trial, section 29 was declared unconstitutional legislation in Damache and therefore the evidence inadmissible as the trail was pending. The courts reverted back to the position in O'Brien and held that the test is now that the Guards must have knowingly, recklessly or been grossly negligent in their breach of the accused constitutional rights in order for the evidence to be inadmissible.

as far as i know this is the last case on this so it remains to be seen how the courts will interpret the threshold for "recklessness".

bivo87

Mileyt wrote: »

Constitution case governer of x prison v PmcD ..there is nothing on Google on this case can anyone pretty please advise where to find? Or details on the right to die case thanks so much in advance!

i think it was in relation to hunger strike or something

Pasted this...

Prison must respect decision of prisoner on hunger strike not to be force fed or receive given medical treatment Governor of X Prison v McD [2015]IEHC 259 (High Court, Baker J, March 31st, 2015) High Court, in the case of a prisoner on hunger strike protesting the conditions of his detention, grants declaration that: (1) the prisoner’s decision to refuse medical and nutritional assistance was valid; (2) the prisoner’s wish and direction should remain operative in the event that the he became incapable of making a decision whether to accept such treatment; and (3) the prison was entitled to give effect to the prisoner’s wishes not to be fed or to receive medical assistance.

Fe1andDone

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Check it out, I'm sure you can buy it online- there is a simple but amazing little book called 'How to Pass Exams' written by world memory champion Dominik O'Brien. I would highly recommend it!

I bought it on Amazon for Kindle. It is really great!

sophiehatter

Aand I've just spend the whole night awake staring at the ceiling. Equity should be fun.

Tyler Durdenn

For Contract law, how important is having the legislation, and which sections are relevant to which areas of the course?

It would be great if anyone could shed some light on this!

fe1chancer

Tyler Durdenn wrote: »

For Contract law, how important is having the legislation, and which sections are relevant to which areas of the course?

It would be great if anyone could shed some light on this!

I sat and passed contract in the last sitting and didn't pay much attention to the legislation unless you are doing the sale of goods chapter which I didn't. I think if you can say which legislation is relevant and have your main cases and points of law you should be well covered.

yournerd

Did anyone here do an interview with William Fry before? Can you please message me? I'm so nervous

Kcookies2015

Ok so up all night reading equity waffle has somewhat paid off in what I think was a reasonable paper...

Q1 - rectification / specific performance relating to mistake in contract regarding property sale PQ

Q2 - Mareva Essay on balancing rights of plaintiff & defendant

Q3 - trustees PQ

Q4 - principles of tracing Essay

Q5 - will leaving all to charity & property deeds handed to niece - advise charity in relation to entitlement to property given to niece (I answered donatio mortis causa) but could be wrong due to lack of sleep
Q6 - note on : doctrine of election, ecceptional categories non charitable purpose trusts will be enforced , strong v bird - Answer 2
Q7 - A - joint accounts B- presumption of advancement father to child
Q8 - Cy-pres Doctrine - discuss when it is invoked

Fe1andDone

Kcookies2015 wrote: »

Ok so up all night reading equity waffle has somewhat paid off in what I think was a reasonable paper...

Q1 - rectification / specific performance relating to mistake in contract regarding property sale PQ

Q2 - Mareva Essay on balancing rights of plaintiff & defendant

Q3 - trustees PQ

Q4 - principles of tracing Essay

Q5 - will leaving all to charity & property deeds handed to niece - advise charity in relation to entitlement to property given to niece (I answered donatio mortis causa) but could be wrong due to lack of sleep
Q6 - note on : doctrine of election, ecceptional categories non charitable purpose trusts will be enforced , strong v bird - Answer 2
Q7 - A - joint accounts B- presumption of advancement father to child
Q8 - Cy-pres Doctrine - discuss when it is invoked

I was surprised at how nice it was. Can only hope my answers were as nice now...