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

Pickpocket

LLBeatle wrote: »

I failed 3 out of 4 last time, all in the 40s so now I'm deeply regretting my decision not to recheck.

I'm just wondering, if anyone had to guess what you could leave out for equity, what would you guess?

What subjects did you sit?

Pickpocket

Hi guys.

I'm just wondering how significant case law names are in a situation where you otherwise have the correct answer? I'll rephrase that: how much are you penalised for not having them?

For example, I'm asked to write a note on rectification. Let's say I know the various principles and defences and how they're applied, but I just haven't got the case names on the day?

I guess I'm just asking because it's going to happen at some stage. Right now I could tackle an "answer 2 of 3" type question as my fifth question, in relation to a number of different topics, but I may have to life without the cases.

Gunslinger92

LLBeatle wrote: »

I failed 3 out of 4 last time, all in the 40s so now I'm deeply regretting my decision not to recheck.

I'm just wondering, if anyone had to guess what you could leave out for equity, what would you guess?

I'm leaving out quia timet injunctions and constructive trusts. Probably could leave out the three certainties too but no harm to have a read over them either

Gunslinger92

Pickpocket wrote: »

Hi guys.

I'm just wondering how significant case law names are in a situation where you otherwise have the correct answer? I'll rephrase that: how much are you penalised for not having them?

For example, I'm asked to write a note on rectification. Let's say I know the various principles and defences and how they're applied, but I just haven't got the case names on the day?

I guess I'm just asking because it's going to happen at some stage. Right now I could tackle an "answer 2 of 3" type question as my fifth question, in relation to a number of different topics, but I may have to life without the cases.

I passed contract with a grand total of about ten cases for the whole paper... so it is possible to pass with just the principles applied correctly to the question.

That said, if I was the contract examiner, I would not have given my paper a passing grade, he must be sound :pac:

Lindyloo 1

LLBeatle wrote: »

I failed 3 out of 4 last time, all in the 40s so now I'm deeply regretting my decision not to recheck.

I'm just wondering, if anyone had to guess what you could leave out for equity, what would you guess?

What's done is done! No point in regrets at this stage. Keep looking forward, you will get there!

By some miracle I managed to get my magic three in October but I failed equity as I severely underestimated it and as it was the last exam I had also run out of steam. I hadn't covered enough topics and only ended up being able to answer 3 questions (I wasn't even able to b/s my way through a fourth not to mention a fifth!) so be careful in leaving out too much.

Lindyloo 1

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

I'm leaving out quia timet injunctions and constructive trusts. Probably could leave out the three certainties too but no harm to have a read over them either

Yep I'm leaving out those too.

Lindyloo 1

Pickpocket wrote: »

Hi guys.

I'm just wondering how significant case law names are in a situation where you otherwise have the correct answer? I'll rephrase that: how much are you penalised for not having them?

For example, I'm asked to write a note on rectification. Let's say I know the various principles and defences and how they're applied, but I just haven't got the case names on the day?

I guess I'm just asking because it's going to happen at some stage. Right now I could tackle an "answer 2 of 3" type question as my fifth question, in relation to a number of different topics, but I may have to life without the cases.

If you can't remember the case name, some facts will do if you can recall them. It's more about examiner seeing that you understand the principles and can apply them correctly.

LLBeatle

Pickpocket wrote: »

What subjects did you sit?

I passed company and failed criminal, contract and equity

LLBeatle

Lindyloo 1 wrote: »

What's done is done! No point in regrets at this stage. Keep looking forward, you will get there!

By some miracle I managed to get my magic three in October but I failed equity as I severely underestimated it and as it was the last exam I had also run out of steam. I hadn't covered enough topics and only ended up being able to answer 3 questions (I wasn't even able to b/s my way through a fourth not to mention a fifth!) so be careful in leaving out too much.

Thank you! I was confused to have failed equity because I felt like it was my best paper out of the four but it's like I did one huge brain dump after the exam and everything I knew about equity is now gone.

TheCrutzer

Pickpocket wrote: »

Hi guys.

I'm just wondering how significant case law names are in a situation where you otherwise have the correct answer? I'll rephrase that: how much are you penalised for not having them?

For example, I'm asked to write a note on rectification. Let's say I know the various principles and defences and how they're applied, but I just haven't got the case names on the day?

I guess I'm just asking because it's going to happen at some stage. Right now I could tackle an "answer 2 of 3" type question as my fifth question, in relation to a number of different topics, but I may have to life without the cases.

I think it just really depends on the question. If it's like the rectification question on last year's paper where it is basically a write everything you know about rectification on the grounds of unilateral mistake I think they expect you to know a case or two because it's so open, whereas if it's a problem question and you can identify the issues and apply the law I think you are given more of a benefit of the doubt.

In Company last year, I could only answer three questions well and then I think it was Examinership or something came up which I had a half decent answer on and then for the fifth questurn I basically had nothing. One of the problem questions I was able to identify the topic but I hadn't learned off cases etc so I just when to the act and applied the act to the question with basically no cases and passed.

So I think it just depends on the question being asked.

TheCrutzer

LLBeatle wrote: »

Thank you! I was confused to have failed equity because I felt like it was my best paper out of the four but it's like I did one huge brain dump after the exam and everything I knew about equity is now gone.

Same as myself. I came out of the equity paper last year and thought I had flown through it but ended up failing it. Very hard to get back into the swing of things then.

Pickpocket

LLBeatle wrote: »

I passed company and failed criminal, contract and equity

Well company is thought by many people to be one of the more difficult subjects (I'm dreading it). So try to take some encouragement from that fact!

Gunslinger92

TheCrutzer wrote: »

Same as myself. I came out of the equity paper last year and thought I had flown through it but ended up failing it. Very hard to get back into the swing of things then.

I remember coming out and having a celebratory cigarette after equity and I ended up chatting to some fella and I remember saying to him "oh I definitely passed that I'd say so I'm happy out" :pac:
And I wouldve bet a month's rent on failing contract but I got 50 on the dot. These things are just so unpredictable! So even if Wednesday goes well I won't get my hopes up

FreeFallin94

Hi guys, can anyone explain to me the relevance of shareholders agreements for the company law exam? I think it's come up in a few problem questions before but not sure what to say about it.

nuac

Mod
Following mature reflection and mod discussion I am withdrawing an earlier warning re repeating the tips, guidance etc from the various tutors and colleges.

Be careful re copyright

Good luck to all

Pickpocket

This is a bit premature but when are the results out?

Lindyloo 1

Pickpocket wrote: »

This is a bit premature but when are the results out?

About 6 weeks after

Robbie25808

Quick question in relation to equity:
For the mandatory interloc essays, do we still talk about the 2nd limb of campus oil (where the balance of convienence lies), or do we just briefly mention campus oil and then say what they highlight in mandatory?

Secondly, in the case of Szabo v Esat Digiphone, it states that for mandatory interloc quia timet injunction we follow Lingham. Does this mean that we have to talk about the topic of quia timet injunctions too?

Appreciate your help just quite stuck on how to actually go about answering the questions as I'm new to law.

lawgirl23

Lindyloo 1 wrote: »

About 6 weeks after

If they follow the same approach as usual, it should be Friday 28th April (usually the Friday 6 weeks after the exams)

Pickpocket

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Quick question in relation to equity:
For the mandatory interloc essays, do we still talk about the 2nd limb of campus oil (where the balance of convienence lies), or do we just briefly mention campus oil and then say what they highlight in mandatory?

I'm pretty sure the second-limb of the Campus test is "are damages an adequate remedy?" And if they are that's the end of the application there and then. If damages are adequate then there's no injunction. Just be careful with that small detail (assuming I'm correct, please tell me if I'm wrong).

In terms of an essay on mandatory interloc injunctions, well from looking at previous exam questions a lot of them seem to focus on the Campus Oil and Shepherd Homes comparison. So I'd be looking at the first limb of the Campus test, i.e. the requirement that there be a serious question to be tried, and comparing it to the Sheperd Homes case, i.e. that there be a strong and clear case.

In the Lingham case it was held that the first limb of the Campus test wasn't enough. If a person is potentially about to be compelled to do something then there must be a higher standard, i.e. the Sheperd Homes case.

After that I'd be looking at Shelbourne Hotel's endorsement of the Films Rover Case, i.e. the lowest risk, 'third way' option, and then on to Okunade v Minister for Justice and Tolo Capital Management v Joseph Linden as proof of that approach taking root in Ireland.

My apologies if that's not what you're inquiring about, and please take all of that with a pinch of salt. I haven't done much work on it yet and need to confirm everything.

LawGuy2016

Guys,

Sorry if this has been addressed previously. However, following the introduction of the 2014 Act, do all Retention of Title Clauses now need to be registered in order to be valid.

Thanks.

TheCrutzer

Just a quick question in relation to secret trusts. If two people hold the property as Joint Tenants and the testator communicates with only one of them before the execution of the will then both are bound right? But if they communicate with only one of them after the execution of the will then only that one is bound?

Then how come the second JT wasn't bound in Re Stead if communication took place before execution?

Pickpocket

TheCrutzer wrote: »

Just a quick question in relation to secret trusts. If two people hold the property as Joint Tenants and the testator communicates with only one of them before the execution of the will then both are bound right? But if they communicate with only one of them after the execution of the will then only that one is bound?

Then how come the second JT wasn't bound in Re Stead if communication took place before execution?

I can't answer that specific question but just be careful with how you're using the word 'communicate'. That's different from acceptance. The terminology in relation to joint tenants is very specific in that the communication must be accepted one way or or the other, irrespective of how the two-part test is applied.

hullaballoo

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

In Company, do all ROT clauses have to be registered now or is it still 2 do (Simple and All Sums Due) and 2 don't (Proceeds of Sale and Aggregation)? Manual is saying one thing and the lecturer is saying another!

odwyer94 wrote: »

I'm going by the manual anyways! It says it all 4 in the city colleges one and it mentions it a few times so it's probably right...

LawGuy2016 wrote: »

Guys,

Sorry if this has been addressed previously. However, following the introduction of the 2014 Act, do all Retention of Title Clauses now need to be registered in order to be valid.

Thanks.

This is the only time I've seen ROT clauses discussed and I have to admit I haven't a bog myself.

Robbie25808

Pickpocket wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the second-limb of the Campus test is "are damages an adequate remedy?" And if they are that's the end of the application there and then. If damages are adequate then there's no injunction. Just be careful with that small detail (assuming I'm correct, please tell me if I'm wrong).

In terms of an essay on mandatory interloc injunctions, well from looking at previous exam questions a lot of them seem to focus on the Campus Oil and Shepherd Homes comparison. So I'd be looking at the first limb of the Campus test, i.e. the requirement that there be a serious question to be tried, and comparing it to the Sheperd Homes case, i.e. that there be a strong and clear case.

In the Lingham case it was held that the first limb of the Campus test wasn't enough. If a person is potentially about to be compelled to do something then there must be a higher standard, i.e. the Sheperd Homes case.

After that I'd be looking at Shelbourne Hotel's endorsement of the Films Rover Case, i.e. the lowest risk, 'third way' option, and then on to Okunade v Minister for Justice and Tolo Capital Management v Joseph Linden as proof of that approach taking root in Ireland.

My apologies if that's not what you're inquiring about, and please take all of that with a pinch of salt. I haven't done much work on it yet and need to confirm everything.

Great, thanks for that.
I have all of the cases I am just unfamiliar on how to actually answer it is all.
So should i focus on the cases of American Cynamid, Campus Oil, Westman Holdings v McCormack, Templeville Developments v Leopardstown golf club, AIB v Diamond. Talk about how for those, the first limb of the test is 'is there a fair bona fide question to be tried?
Then go onto explain in mandatory interloc injunction, that they drop the first limb of the test and you need a strong and clear case. Talk about Shepard Homes, Lingham, etc.

Also, do you know if we have to talk about quia timet injunctions for this also? As in Szabo they mention that for quia timet mandatory use Lingham. Does that mean we have to discuss the topic of quia timet injunctions?

Thanks for all your help

yela

Hey guys, quick question on duties owed by shadow and de facto directors. Is it the same as that owed by a formally appointed director? I'm looking at sept 14 q8.
Thanks in advance!

Robbie25808

Another question in relaiton to this one:

Last year, John and Brian reached an agreement to the effect that John would sell his interest in a parcel
of land to Brian for €300,000. While it was John's intention to exclude one particularly valuable site from
the deal, he never communicated this to Brian and that site was included in the contract when their
agreement was recorded in writing. Subsequently, John realised the mistake and sought rectification of
the contract to exclude this valuable site.
Brian wishes to secure the entirety of the lands and so has counterclaimed for specific performance of the
contract. John has argued in his defence to the counterclaim that the contract ought not to be specifically
performed because of the mistake regarding the inclusion of the valuable site. He has also argued that, as
land prices have increased significantly in the past year, it would impose an unfair and unnecessary
hardship upon him if specific performance of the contract was granted.
Advise John about his prospects of obtaining rectification of the contract. Advise Brian about the likely
response of the Court to his counterclaim for specific performance and of John's potential defences to it.

I understand its a unilateral mistake, no sharp practice so wont get recitification.
In relation to SP, do you just mention that there needs to be a concluded agreement and must be a note/memo?
In relation to defences, are the only defences hardship and mistake which he will fail for?

Redo91

LawGuy2016 wrote: »

Guys,

Sorry if this has been addressed previously. However, following the introduction of the 2014 Act, do all Retention of Title Clauses now need to be registered in order to be valid.

Thanks.

As far as I know a simple retention of title clause doesn't. I think it was Re Charles Dougherty where Carroll J (could be wrong on the judge) said that a simple retention of title clause isn't complex enough to be considered a charge.

Edit: In saying that depending on the interpretation of S 408 it could mean that even a simple retention of title clause should be registered.

Robbie25808

TheCrutzer wrote: »

Just a quick question in relation to secret trusts. If two people hold the property as Joint Tenants and the testator communicates with only one of them before the execution of the will then both are bound right? But if they communicate with only one of them after the execution of the will then only that one is bound?

Then how come the second JT wasn't bound in Re Stead if communication took place before execution?

If communicate after, it severs the joint tenancy, makes it a tenancy in common.
One party holds for the beneficary the other is on resulting trust for the estate

Pickpocket

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Great, thanks for that.
I have all of the cases I am just unfamiliar on how to actually answer it is all.
So should i focus on the cases of American Cynamid, Campus Oil, Westman Holdings v McCormack, Templeville Developments v Leopardstown golf club, AIB v Diamond. Talk about how for those, the first limb of the test is 'is there a fair bona fide question to be tried?
Then go onto explain in mandatory interloc injunction, that they drop the first limb of the test and you need a strong and clear case. Talk about Shepard Homes, Lingham, etc.

Yeah that's pretty much what I'll be going in with. I'm not preparing for a specific type of question because no doubt there's gonna be some sort of twist, but in general terms I'll have those cases in my head and with some understanding of how they relate to each other.

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Also, do you know if we have to talk about quia timet injunctions for this also? As in Szabo they mention that for quia timet mandatory use Lingham. Does that mean we have to discuss the topic of quia timet injunctions?

Thanks for all your help

I'm gonna say no. From looking at the past papers quia timet is a separate type of question. I don't recall seeing any question that mixed it with a question on interlocutory mandatory injunction, and there's no reference to quia timet in the interloc section of my manual, the Nutshell or any of the notes and materials doing the rounds. I've no reason to believe that they'll form part of the same question on the day.