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

Lumi77

monroe89 wrote: »

Oh lads I made a total mess of my paper today, flew threw my first 3 questions but my last 2 were a disaster. I just didn't prepare the right things in detail 😞 3 more to go but so disheartened and annoyed with myself. Ugh 😢

Keep head up, you never know these exams are like lottery. Fingers crossed

MeganC1554

monroe89 wrote: »

Oh lads I made a total mess of my paper today, flew threw my first 3 questions but my last 2 were a disaster. I just didn't prepare the right things in detail 😞 3 more to go but so disheartened and annoyed with myself. Ugh 😢

Seriously these exams are so unpredictable. You may have three strong answers and 2 alright answers which may be more than to get you over the 50%. Your three strong answers may be a whole lot better than my half attempt 5 questions. You just never know. So I really wouldn't be thinking negative whatsoever, you did great to get 3 good questions. Believe me your not the only one that has been in that predicament. Chin up.

monroe89

MeganC1554 wrote: »

Seriously these exams are so unpredictable. You may have three strong answers and 2 alright answers which may be more than to get you over the 50%. Your three strong answers may be a whole lot better than my half attempt 5 questions. You just never know. So I really wouldn't be thinking negative whatsoever, you did great to get 3 good questions. Believe me your not the only one that has been in that predicament. Chin up.

Thank you! People on this board are so encouraging, it's definitely making me feel a little better. Sheer exhaustion probably not helping. What's done is done I guess, and now time to regroup!

Redo91

ak4321 wrote: »

Redo91 wrote: »

Ya I'd still apply it. I'd also mention Re Tralee Beef and Lamb where it was said that as well as questioning whether the director complied with their duties under the Act, it should also be asked whether they have carried out their common law duties.

Is it just me that's worried about identifying what cases apply to reckless v fraudulent trading and then restriction v disqualification? Certainly with reckless v fraudulent trading in struggling to identify distinguishing features in the cases under heading. Even in my manual it has PSK Construction under both reckless and fraudulent trading. It send the 1st repondent was found guilty of both. Is thay even possible?

Not covering reckless and fraudulent, should there be any difficulty in identifying what's restrictions and disqualifications from fraudulent and reckless though? Or are characteristics of f&l completely different?

I don't know I just find the cases where there was a finding of restriction or disqualification to be really similar. The case names help at least as most cases involving restriction are taken by the DOCE.

Can anyone tell me if PSK was reckless or fraudulent? According to my manual it's both?!

Also sorry for asking this again but what is everyone's approach to pre-2014 Act cases in terms of the legislation. For example if a case involved what was at the time a S 205 application, when referencing it could you simply call it a S 212 application?

kyliewyote7

Redo91 wrote: »

Also sorry for asking this again but what is everyone's approach to pre-2014 Act cases in terms of the legislation. For example if a case involved what was at the time a S 205 application, when referencing it could you simply call it a S 212 application?

At this stage, I'll be referencing just the current sections. I feel I don't have case names, let alone double sections!

hullaballoo

Redo91 wrote: »

Also sorry for asking this again but what is everyone's approach to pre-2014 Act cases in terms of the legislation. For example if a case involved what was at the time a S 205 application, when referencing it could you simply call it a S 212 application?

I would refer to it as "the old s. 205" if the case was decided pre-2014 Act. It's the quickest way to get across the point that you are referring to the section as it was pre-2014 and it's not going to be possible to spell out "pre-2014 regime" or whatever every time.

Obviously you need to recognise that there are differences between the two regimes and cases decided under the pre-2014 regime might not be decided the same way today, although with s. 205 oppression etc. it's more or less the same.

Redo91

hullaballoo wrote: »

Redo91 wrote: »

Also sorry for asking this again but what is everyone's approach to pre-2014 Act cases in terms of the legislation. For example if a case involved what was at the time a S 205 application, when referencing it could you simply call it a S 212 application?

I would refer to it as "the old s. 205" if the case was decided pre-2014 Act. It's the quickest way to get across the point that you are referring to the section as it was pre-2014 and it's not going to be possible to spell out "pre-2014 regime" or whatever every time.

Obviously you need to recognise that there are differences between the two regimes and cases decided under the pre-2014 regime might not be decided the same way today, although with s. 205 oppression etc. it's more or less the same.

Are most of the old sections just imposed into the 2014 Act in any case with little or no change. Does the same not apply re restriction, disqualification? I'm hoping to get away with saying S 619 etc. Then again I could just say restriction proceedings?

Redo91

hullaballoo wrote: »

Redo91 wrote: »

Also sorry for asking this again but what is everyone's approach to pre-2014 Act cases in terms of the legislation. For example if a case involved what was at the time a S 205 application, when referencing it could you simply call it a S 212 application?

I would refer to it as "the old s. 205" if the case was decided pre-2014 Act. It's the quickest way to get across the point that you are referring to the section as it was pre-2014 and it's not going to be possible to spell out "pre-2014 regime" or whatever every time.

Obviously you need to recognise that there are differences between the two regimes and cases decided under the pre-2014 regime might not be decided the same way today, although with s. 205 oppression etc. it's more or less the same.

Are most of the old sections just imposed into the 2014 Act in any case with little or no change. Does the same not apply re restriction, disqualification? I'm hoping to get away with saying S 619 etc. Then again I could just say restriction proceedings?

anosullivan

Why does the eu course have to be so broad! I have everything covered but nothing learned! 😩 Does anyone know any of the tips that the intensive courses have suggested for eu?? Last years paper had all the usual questions so struggling to think of what could possibly be on this one 😷

BASHBAG

Just a couple of company queries that I'm hoping some kind soul could help me out with, both regarding past papers.

1. Where a shareholder's agreement is in place, which stipulates that the company will support that particular shareholder's business, would failure to comply with such an agreement constitute "oppression" re s.212?

2. In one of the restriction questions the company's books and records are destroyed in one of the directors cars. I was just wondering what kind of bearing this would have when answering a problem question?

I can't find the exact question now but I'm pretty sure it said that up until that point the books had been kept properly.

Thanks!!!

kyliewyote7

BASHBAG wrote: »

Just a couple of company queries that I'm hoping some kind soul could help me out with, both regarding past papers.

1. Where a shareholder's agreement is in place, which stipulates that the company will support that particular shareholder's business, would failure to comply with such an agreement constitute "oppression" re s.212?

2. In one of the restriction questions the company's books and records are destroyed in one of the directors cars. I was just wondering what kind of bearing this would have when answering a problem question?

I can't find the exact question now but I'm pretty sure it said that up until that point the books had been kept properly.

Thanks!!!

OK re: restriction - case law puts a significant emphasis on ensuring safety of records (Re Carera - directors were responsible for safety of the records where the company was dormant) but all the circumstances will be taken into account (Re Costello Doors - the bookkeeper was no longer employed so didn't ground the restriction). That's my approach anyway!

I could be completely off base with shareholder's agreements - my gut reaction was they are more likely to be actionable in contract rather than S212 - but thinking about I am now doubting myself!

BASHBAG

kyliewyote7 wrote: »

OK re: restriction - case law puts a significant emphasis on ensuring safety of records (Re Carera - directors were responsible for safety of the records where the company was dormant) but all the circumstances will be taken into account (Re Costello Doors - the bookkeeper was no longer employed so didn't ground the restriction). That's my approach anyway!

I could be completely off base with shareholder's agreements - my gut reaction was they are more likely to be actionable in contract rather than S212 - but thinking about I am now doubting myself!

Ya it's a weird little part of a question. I was thinking along the lines that maybe the statutory legislation would trump any contractual dealings between the company and shareholder, as it is kind of seen in some other cases eg. Lee v Lee and Company regarding pre emption rights taking precedence over a sale of shares between two individuals. But I could be wrong.

I'll keep searching

odwyer94

I wasn't stressed about tomorrow until I started reading this thread... You all seem to be asking extremely specific questions??!? I hope such specific knowledge will not be required to pass the exam and that general principles will suffice.

ak4321

Can someone be subject to both a restriction and disqualification order or do you just discount restriction orders if you think it qualifies for disqualification?

laurenburne

Lindyloo 1 wrote: »

Just wondering if you got a response to this. Tort is so vast!

I didn't lindyloo sorry. I know. It's my last exam. Failed it three times already and I absolutely have to pass to keep my training contract. So much pressure from my parents and everyone asking me "you must be very prepared this time are you" you would think!!

I think the pressure gets to me and I mess it up. Not being able to sleep at all has really affected me recalling stuff I have studied in the past.

Feel like such an embarrassment at this stage.

If annnnyone has any tips to give u would greatly appreciate it.

I have looked at (but need to learn off) mos chapters bar occupiers liability, damages, employer liability, state liability.

Feel like I know nothing despite lots of study. It's very frustrating.

It's crazy how nerves can affect these exams.

OscarBN

laurenburne wrote: »

I didn't lindyloo sorry. I know. It's my last exam. Failed it three times already and I absolutely have to pass to keep my training contract. So much pressure from my parents and everyone asking me "you must be very prepared this time are you" you would think!!

I think the pressure gets to me and I mess it up. Not being able to sleep at all has really affected me recalling stuff I have studied in the past.

Feel like such an embarrassment at this stage.

If annnnyone has any tips to give u would greatly appreciate it.

I have looked at (but need to learn off) mos chapters bar occupiers liability, damages, employer liability, state liability.

Feel like I know nothing despite lots of study. It's very frustrating.

It's crazy how nerves can affect these exams.

Lauren, forget the pressure, the tc etc forget the big picture, focus only on the exam.

I have only 1 left too - the information you will remember from previously sitting tort will amaze you......honestly.

I let nerves get the better of me last time, just breathe take control and think, right bring it on!

laurenburne

OscarBN wrote: »

Lauren, forget the pressure, the tc etc, forget the big picture, focus only on the exam.

I have only 1 left too - the information you will remember from previously sitting tort will amaze you......honestly.

I let nerves get the better of me last time, just breathe take control and think, right bring it on!

Thanks a mil Oscar, your very right. People that havnt sat these exams or studied for these before just don't get how hard or how stressfull they are.

I think practising recalling stuff is the way to go with study.

Seven days of cramming - you can get alot done in that time I guess.

Lindyloo 1

Absolutely Lauren. You are in a fantastic position only having one exam left and tc in the bag, you should be incredibly proud of what you have achieved.

A full 7 days left to prepare so you will be totally fine. Deep breaths!

LegalAnna

Any predictions for eu law?? Would be a great help!

binkevii

hi, can anyone send me an updated tort grid please? and any predictions for this exam? Thanks

CP92

Hey guys, does anyone have updated grids for Criminal and Property? It would be really appreciated

SoulSearchR

Hi all,

Anyone any ideas on what I could possibly leave out for Criminal...running short on time, so much to cover.

Also, does anybody know have night before notes been posted yet? All I can find ate the 2016 ones?

Bes of luck with exams guys!!!!

odwyer94

That did not go well...

Redo91

odwyer94 wrote: »

That did not go well...

What questions did you do?

Gunslinger92

SoulSearchR wrote: »

Hi all,

Anyone any ideas on what I could possibly leave out for Criminal...running short on time, so much to cover.

Also, does anybody know have night before notes been posted yet? All I can find ate the 2016 ones?

Bes of luck with exams guys!!!!

You can't really leave out too much with criminal to be honest.. maybe the smaller topics like the courts and things like syringe offences that don't crop up that often. Saying that though, I don't think syringe offences appeared last time

odwyer94

Redo91 wrote: »

What questions did you do?

2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 I think. I felt so confident going into that exam and then I just went blank first and then had difficulty working out exactly what some of the questions were asking. I knew all of the theory last night and this morning I just applied it all wrongly. I think my answers for the SLP question and the Foss v Harbottle were ok but the remaining three were not, in fact I'd say two of them were diabolical and I hadn't a clue what I was talking about. Should have practised more past papers I think!

Lumi77

SoulSearchR wrote: »

Hi all,

Anyone any ideas on what I could possibly leave out for Criminal...running short on time, so much to cover.

Also, does anybody know have night before notes been posted yet? All I can find ate the 2016 ones?

Bes of luck with exams guys!!!!

It's short not much you can live out but maybe live out courts system trial in due course of law offences against state, classification of murder.
Concentrate on offences and defences should have enough to get you through.

anosullivan

Did anyone get the eu night before notes after the exam? Would someone mind telling me what topics were on it? They're usually a very good indicator for the exam??

graduate555

Guys I hate post mortems but.. Was Jackie liable in the directors duties question today? I haven't anything in my notes about non directors so it's kind of annoying me :P

Redo91

odwyer94 wrote: »

Redo91 wrote: »

What questions did you do?

2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 I think. I felt so confident going into that exam and then I just went blank first and then had difficulty working out exactly what some of the questions were asking. I knew all of the theory last night and this morning I just applied it all wrongly. I think my answers for the SLP question and the Foss v Harbottle were ok but the remaining three were not, in fact I'd say two of them were diabolical and I hadn't a clue what I was talking about. Should have practised more past papers I think!

You might have done better than you think. These exams are notoriously difficult to judge.

Ya I did both those too. Even though I had the Act I couldn't think of what sections to mention for the SLP action so just had case law. Happy with the foss v harbottle one too. Mentioned all the extra remedies, broad criteria and that you can have proceedings in camera under section 212 so derivative actions are basically obsolete.

For anyone that did question 1 on ostensible authority did you mention to the 3 exceptions to the rule in Turquands? Also I only had three cases (freeman & Lockyer, Turquand and Aib v Ardmore). Do people think that's enoiugh?