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

Pickpocket

nuac wrote: »

imho there is nothing to beat taking the time to read a judgement in full

Absolutely. I think that reading cases for the FE1s isn't practical, or necessary, given the nature of the exam papers, but as an undergraduate there's simply no substitute to full judgements. I've even went one further and started to read them recreationally! I love reading a good argument, seeing everything come together. Even the sentence structure and command of language is a joy at times.

Anyway, none of that helps with my exams! I'm still hopelessly out of time. I've never failed an exam before, but a late start and full-time job are not things I had to contend with in my student days. A lesson learned. It won't happen again.

laurenburne

Pickpocket wrote: »

Don't laugh, but how reliable are Nutshells for some of the smaller topics? I'm seriously stuck for time and I was thinking that I could get a quick grasp of subjects like rectification, recission and tracing. Just in case they pop up in an answer 2 of 3 question or form part of a problem question that I'd otherwise miss out on. Better than nothing I suppose, I'm just worried about cutting too many corners.

I'm not joking when I say I passed constitutional on reading nutshells. it's way better to know a little about alot than to know a number of topics in depth and then not being able to anser five questions.

Answering give questions is KEY

The nutshell will tell you in basic lanuage the general priciples and the leading cases in that area. Nothing wrong with it at all at all if your under pressure.

You'll be surprised how much you pick from those little chapters.

Best of luck

Pickpocket

laurenburne wrote: »

I'm not joking when I say I passed constitutional on reading nutshells. it's way better to know a little about alot than to know a number of topics in depth and then not being able to anser five questions.

Answering give questions is KEY

The nutshell will tell you in basic lanuage the general priciples and the leading cases in that area. Nothing wrong with it at all at all if your under pressure.

You'll be surprised how much you pick from those little chapters.

Best of luck

Thanks!

To be fair they were often my starting point at an undergrad as well. They got me up and running in subjects that I didn't have a feel for. So I have experience with them, just not FE1 experience.

My boss signed me up for these exams about 6 weeks ago, just to get me up and running at them. We both knew it was a long shot given the timeframe so in many respects it was just an exploratory sitting ahead of October. However I don't feel too far off and the closer I get the more I want to get them nailed down. Hence the panic, the late nights and the Nutshells :P

Lindyloo 1

Pickpocket wrote: »

Absolutely. I think that reading cases for the FE1s isn't practical, or necessary, given the nature of the exam papers, but as an undergraduate there's simply no substitute to full judgements. I've even went one further and started to read them recreationally! I love reading a good argument, seeing everything come together. Even the sentence structure and command of language is a joy at times.

Anyway, none of that helps with my exams! I'm still hopelessly out of time. I've never failed an exam before, but a late start and full-time job are not things I had to contend with in my student days. A lesson learned. It won't happen again.

Working full time while prepping for these exams is no joke, but is doable and you'd be amazed at what you can take in on last few days so stick with it and keep the chin up. Hope your boss is giving you some study leave.

Pickpocket

Lindyloo 1 wrote: »

Working full time while prepping for these exams is no joke, but is doable and you'd be amazed at what you can take in on last few days so stick with it and keep the chin up. Hope your boss is giving you some study leave.

Thanks for the support. My boss has been great actually. He paid for my exams and two weeks paid leave. He just sensed my reluctance to get stuck into these exams and so gave me a kick up the arse. It worked!

shellbm

1, Separate Legal Personality
2. Ultra Vires
3. Corporate Authority
4. Directors Duties
5. Restrictions on Directors
6. Directors Duties on Insolvency
7. Shareholders Meetings
8. Shareholder Protection
9. Transfer and Transmission of Shares
10. Receivership
11. Liquidation
12. Realisation of Corporate Assets
13. Borrowing


Does the above look like enough to cover for Company? To pass comfortably? Thanks !!

20029422

shellbm wrote: »

1, Separate Legal Personality
2. Ultra Vires
3. Corporate Authority
4. Directors Duties
5. Restrictions on Directors
6. Directors Duties on Insolvency
7. Shareholders Meetings
8. Shareholder Protection
9. Transfer and Transmission of Shares
10. Receivership
11. Liquidation
12. Realisation of Corporate Assets
13. Borrowing


Does the above look like enough to cover for Company? To pass comfortably? Thanks !!

I have the same amount of topics I just wrote a page and a half on 5 reforms also you should have plenty as company isn't mixed questions

Redo91

Could somebody please tell me what section of the company's Act requires a person to be registered on the register of members before they can exercise their rights qua owner of a share? My manual says it's Section 170 but that's wrong.

Dunne1995

Does anyone have solutions to 2016 EU papers? Looking specifically for answers to the questions on Art 263 - annulment actions.

Rinnuco2016

Hi, I'm looking for an updated grid for criminal and contract, mine ends 2015. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks a lot!

PerrenialFE1r

Hey folks, just a quick Company Law query;

The phrase "liable to account to the Company" in relation to breach of Directors duties, presumably this means that the director has to repay any personal profit resulting from the breach back to the company as opposed to simply declaring the fact of the profit having arisen to the company?

Any clarification would be appreciated, thanks!

Redo91

PerrenialFE1r wrote: »

Hey folks, just a quick Company Law query;

The phrase "liable to account to the Company" in relation to breach of Directors duties, presumably this means that the director has to repay any personal profit resulting from the breach back to the company as opposed to simply declaring the fact of the profit having arisen to the company?

Any clarification would be appreciated, thanks!

Yes that's my understanding. If they disclose it beforehand it's ok though. I think it's Gluckstein v Barnes where the directors disclosed to the board that they were to make a profit from the transaction and were allowed to keep that money but they made an additional "secret profit" by way of the their interest in the vendor company which they had to account for.

Edit:I should add the members still have to pass a special resolution to allow them to keep the profit.

ak4321

Am I right in saying there were 2 questions on services, establishment, workers and capital in the last EU sitting in October? If so I'm very tempted to leave the chapter out!

Yoop

ak4321 wrote: »

Am I right in saying there were 2 questions on services, establishment, workers and capital in the last EU sitting in October? If so I'm very tempted to leave the chapter out!

I did that exam and I have the reports right here and the only freedom was the movement of goods. Citizenship came up as well but I didn't answer any questions on services etc. and I don't see them mentioned in the reports. Maybe it was the March sitting?

ak4321

Yoop wrote: »

I did that exam and I have the reports right here and the only freedom was the movement of goods. Citizenship came up as well but I didn't answer any questions on services etc. and I don't see them mentioned in the reports. Maybe it was the March sitting?

I was just going off something I'd heard off someone so you're probably right! That changes things so, better start learning it!

irishasj

For Constitutional I am planning on studying; -

1. Proportionality- Waxy case
2. Unconstitutionality - Bederev V Ireland
3. Presumption of constitutionality - Waxy case
4. Right to access to legal advisor - DPP v Doyle
5. Unconstitutional obtained evidence JC v DPP
6. Right to silence
7. Non delegation - Bederev v Ireland- N.H.V v Minister For Justice -
8. The relationship with Judicial, Executive and Legislature
9. History of unenumerated rights
10. Dail privilege - Kerins v PAC
11. Locus standi
12. Equality
13. Right to privacy/freedom of expression - Gilchrist V Rogers
14. Right to life
15. Life of the unborn and the mother
16. Family and Education
17. Interpretation
I've put those cases beside the topics for those who are looking for the cases from Dr Eoin Carolan's talk in UCD last week.

Is there anything I'm missing that is jumping out to anybody? Would love to spend my time learning these off but fear I'm missing something giant!

Thanks a million for any input.

anosullivan

Does anyone have a copy of the handout from the ucd lecture? I have last years copy to swap??

monroe89

ak4321 wrote: »

Am I right in saying there were 2 questions on services, establishment, workers and capital in the last EU sitting in October? If so I'm very tempted to leave the chapter out!

One of the case notes was FOE and another case note was FTPS if that helps at all? Nothing on free movement of capital since march 2015.
Question on Citizenship also (essay q) in October and Equality cropped up.

sobriquet25

Does anyone know what the Independent Colleges predictions are for EU? Or anyone have any thoughts? It's by far my least favourite subject and I'm getting mildly panicked!

TheCrutzer

For Eu and member state liability, does the Kobler decision extend liability to include liability for courts of last instance only does anyone know? Or is it all courts?

And also with regards to citizenship and equal treatment in the Foster case, is the reason that she was not entitled to the grant because she had no link to the state as she was not a worker? As I saw a question that came up in 2014 I think it was where there was a student that did not qualify for a grant in holland because he was not a national, but he was working part time. So he should be entitled to that grant because he has a link to the state as a worker and this creates the link?

monroe89

TheCrutzer wrote: »

And also with regards to citizenship and equal treatment in the Foster case, is the reason that she was not entitled to the grant because she had no link to the state as she was not a worker? As I saw a question that came up in 2014 I think it was where there was a student that did not qualify for a grant in holland because he was not a national, but he was working part time. So he should be entitled to that grant because he has a link to the state as a worker and this creates the link?

Forster was classed as a worker, but the difference being here that after the Bidar judgment a new Policy was put in place in Netherlands which stated "a student who is a national of a member state of the EU...may, on application, be eligible for study finance pursuant to....if, prior to the application, he has been lawfullly resident in the Netherlands for an uninterrupted period of at least 5 years"

Forster didn't have 5 years uninterrupted sevice.
The ECJ held that the five year residency requirement was justified by the objective for the host MS to ensure that students who are nationals of other MS have integrated into its society to a certain degree.

They held 5 years to be an inexcessive requrement; and also noted that MS are justified to require a certain degree of integration of non-nationals to ensure maintenance costs of students from other MS don't become an unreasonable burden on the state.

TheCrutzer

monroe89 wrote: »

Forster was classed as a worker, but the difference being here that after the Bidar judgment a new Policy was put in place in Netherlands which stated "a student who is a national of a member state of the EU...may, on application, be eligible for study finance pursuant to....if, prior to the application, he has been lawfullly resident in the Netherlands for an uninterrupted period of at least 5 years"

Forster didn't have 5 years uninterrupted sevice.
The ECJ held that the five year residency requirement was justified by the objective for the host MS to ensure that students who are nationals of other MS have integrated into its society to a certain degree.

They held 5 years to be an inexcessive requrement; and also noted that MS are justified to require a certain degree of integration of non-nationals to ensure maintenance costs of students from other MS don't become an unreasonable burden on the state.

Thanks! Just to make sure that I have it, if a pq should come up then where a student is looking to challenge the validity of national measure whereby only nationals of the member state are entitled to the study grant, I would just just state according to Forster the applicant would need the five years uninterrupted residency or else the members state is justified in its discrimination?

monroe89

TheCrutzer wrote: »

Thanks! Just to make sure that I have it, if a pq should come up then where a student is looking to challenge the validity of national measure whereby only nationals of the member state are entitled to the study grant, I would just just state according to Forster the applicant would need the five years uninterrupted residency or else the members state is justified in its discrimination?

If the MS in the problem q had imposed some national measures making only nationals of that MS entitled to the study grant, my interpretation of it would be to discuss Forster in relation to how a MS may impose restrictions or certain requirements for a non-national to receive the study grant, but that those restrictions have to be proportionate to the legitimate objective being pursued by the national law in order for it to be justified in light of Community law, for example in Forster there was a legitimate objective to avoid overburdening the state with maintenance grants of non-nationals until they had been sufficiently integrated into society. If there was an outright restriction on providing study grants to non-nationals you could state this would seem excessive and discuss any justifications given by the MS that might be in the problem q

I hope that helps a little, I hope it's not too late in the evening and I'm muddling everything up!

TheCrutzer

monroe89 wrote: »

If the MS in the problem q had imposed some national measures making only nationals of that MS entitled to the study grant, my interpretation of it would be to discuss Forster in relation to how a MS may impose restrictions or certain requirements for a non-national to receive the study grant, but that those restrictions have to be proportionate to the legitimate objective being pursued by the national law in order for it to be justified in light of Community law, for example in Forster there was a legitimate objective to avoid overburdening the state with maintenance grants of non-nationals until they had been sufficiently integrated into society. If there was an outright restriction on providing study grants to non-nationals you could state this would seem excessive and discuss any justifications given by the MS that might be in the problem q

I hope that helps a little, I hope it's not too late in the evening and I'm muddling everything up!

That's fantastic, thanks for that. I must have read the judgement in that case five or six times and I just wasn't getting it.

ak4321

Any tips for EU case notes?

Redo91

Hi all. Hope the study is going well. Just looking for some clarification re case names. My manual has a case called "re Walfab Engineering" while there's also a case of "Director of Corporate Enforcement v Walsh and Ors, which involves directors of a company called Walfab Enginneers. Are they the same case and if so which is the correct case name to cite in the exam?

Also "Re Spectrum Plus" and "National Weatminster Bank v Spectrum Plus". Again are these the same case?

Thanks in advance for any help!

Yoop

Redo91 wrote: »

Hi all. Hope the study is going well. Just looking for some clarification re case names. My manual has a case called "re Walfab Engineering" while there's also a case of "Director of Corporate Enforcement v Walsh and Ors, which involves directors of a company called Walfab Enginneers. Are they the same case and if so which is the correct case name to cite in the exam?

Also "Re Spectrum Plus" and "National Weatminster Bank v Spectrum Plus". Again are these the same case?

Thanks in advance for any help!

I can't help you with the first case but I've always referred to Spectrum Plus as Re Spectrum Plus. Case names are very easily forgotten so with the vast majority it's enough to identify it and apply the correct principle arising from it. Once the examiner knows what one you're talking about I'd imagine you'll be okay.

One exception would be if there was a X v X (No.1) and X v X (No. 2) - full and correct citation would be necessary here.

Redo91

Yoop wrote: »

I can't help you with the first case but I've always referred to Spectrum Plus as Re Spectrum Plus. Case names are very easily forgotten so with the vast majority it's enough to identify it and apply the correct principle arising from it. Once the examiner knows what one you're talking about I'd imagine you'll be okay.

One exception would be if there was a X v X (No.1) and X v X (No. 2) - full and correct citation would be necessary here.

Thanks! I've also noticed lots of cases in Company law such as Re Verit Hotel and Leisure Ireland; Duignan v Carway and Re National Irish Bank; Director of Corporate Enforcement v Byrne. Would Duignan v Carway and Director of Corporate Enforcement v Byrne be sufficient for cases like these?

Yoop

Redo91 wrote: »

Thanks! I've also noticed lots of cases in Company law such as Re Verit Hotel and Leisure Ireland; Duignan v Carway and Re National Irish Bank; Director of Corporate Enforcement v Byrne. Would Duignan v Carway and Director of Corporate Enforcement v Byrne be sufficient for cases like these?

Yep, that should be fine.

shellbm

Can I ask, is it odd that my prep course for Company didn't dedicate any time at all to the general topic of "significant changes and reforms brought in by the 2014 act"? Should I prepare an answer to this just in case?