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

rocksch2

Fe1stresser wrote: »

Phew...... I thought I had read it wrong. By the way I think he's an ok marker. I stayed only the 45 mins in march and wrote less than a page on 2 questions and got 30% which defies the odds of reason!

Christ!!! Although wasn't there something about March being a ridiculously hard paper and lots of complaints so the marking was easier than normal, not sure.

Eartha Braveheart

Transparency wasn't relevant to the question I don't think. Ew. Found the paper tough. And idea what kinda % pass equity? Is it one of the tougher marked ones?

TheLawBear2

I s there a minim amount of time you have to stay in the exam room for before leaving??? my first time sitting them and only concentrated on three exams... have to go in here tomorrow relying on what I know from my law degree.

Inmyownworld

You have to stay in for a min of 45mins and can't leave in the last 30mins.

Tea-a-Maria

^^You have to stay for the first half hour.And you have to sit it,otherwise you haven't met the rule of sitting 4 on your first go.

michelle2000

Losing the will to live with equity. Here's hoping for a nice paper. Best of luck to everyone in the final two!

michelle2000

Losing the will to live with equity. Here's hoping for a nice paper. Best of luck to everyone in the final two!

Caoileann

On the March 2013 paper Q1 on Art 38.1 was divided into 3 parts, the third part asked what remedies would be available. I have no idea what to say to that if it comes up and can't find anything on it does anyone know? Thanks

Aislingo55

If anyone could help me with this I would be forever indebted! Heaney and Tuohy proportionality - is it sufficient to outline the relevant tests and say their application is a matter to be determined for the courts or are we expected to know which one applies to a particular right? I know in terms of property rights Heaney is more usually applied but Im at a loss as to whether or how to apply it to other rights. Anyone leaving anything out for constitutional at this stage?

CRM1

Aislingo55 wrote: »

If anyone could help me with this I would be forever indebted! Heaney and Tuohy proportionality - is it sufficient to outline the relevant tests and say their application is a matter to be determined for the courts or are we expected to know which one applies to a particular right? I know in terms of property rights Heaney is more usually applied but Im at a loss as to whether or how to apply it to other rights. Anyone leaving anything out for constitutional at this stage?

What I take from it is that these tests and their applicability is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Don't have my constitutional notes to hand but there was one case where the supreme court applied one part of heaney and then tuohy without explaining why. There are certain rights which will be aligned more closely to either test, depending on the facts of the case and what the court determines is the anchor point for assessment be it the legislation (tuohy) or where the legislation appears to be rational but must assess how it impacts on one citizen's right imparticular... so anchor point will be the right.

Aislingo55

CRM1 wrote: »

What I take from it is that these tests and their applicability is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Don't have my constitutional notes to hand but there was one case where the supreme court applied one part of heaney and then tuohy without explaining why. There are certain rights which will be aligned more closely to either test, depending on the facts of the case and what the court determines is the anchor point for assessment be it the legislation (tuohy) or where the legislation appears to be rational but must assess how it impacts on one citizen's right imparticular... so anchor point will be the right.

Can I just clarify is it necessary to state definitively which applies? Thanks for the clarification!

CRM1

Aislingo55 wrote: »

Can I just clarify is it necessary to state definitively which applies? Thanks for the clarification!

Again its only what I took from it.... as for state which applies I don't know I can't answer that. But I have read somewhere to be careful when invoking the tests in relation to problem questions and to be able to quote academics on the process.... besides my opinion if the Supreme Court hasn't stated definitively what and when to apply... well sure us fe1 wizards can't really be expected to know. I could be eating my words come Thursday afternoon though!

rocksch2

CRM1 wrote: »

Again its only what I took from it.... as for state which applies I don't know I can't answer that. But I have read somewhere to be careful when invoking the tests in relation to problem questions and to be able to quote academics on the process.... besides my opinion if the Supreme Court hasn't stated definitively what and when to apply... well sure us fe1 wizards can't really be expected to know. I could be eating my words come Thursday afternoon though!

I'm fairly sure in the Heaney decision they referenced Tuohy. There is a lot of confusion in the area and if you're applying a relevant case to your problem question, just indicate what test was used and how the Courts may lean towards this view.

michelle2000

Was it my imagination or was there a mix of charitable with three certainties in the question with Bryan in equity this morn?

Milkypops

Well I'm done and dusted for another while! 2 injunctions bit harsh like managed 5 questions but thought it was a bit restrictive.... What did ppl think??

TheGreaterFool

Charitable or purpose that was mixed in Brian's three certainties question?

No undue influence for what, the first time in like 8/10 sittings?

TheGreaterFool

Anyone have recommendations for what Constitutional stuff to study for the night for someone just turning up tomorrow to sign in and maybe chancing a few?

michelle2000

TheGreaterFool wrote: »

Charitable or purpose that was mixed in Brian's three certainties question?

No undue influence for what, the first time in like 8/10 sittings?

Crap is that what it was about? Purpose and not charity? Can anyone clarify?

Dave Freeman

I have the 2013 Constitutional Law seminar by Eoin Carolan (the FE1 examiner) which lists the most important cases for the last year, would be willing to swap for any 2012/2013 exam solutions that can be emailed.

Stormington

Horrific paper.

For me at least. No ui, no proprietary estoppel and I ended up with half of 2 other questions. That must have been karma for something awful I've done in a past life.

71fe1

TheGreaterFool wrote: »

Anyone have recommendations for what Constitutional stuff to study for the night for someone just turning up tomorrow to sign in and maybe chancing a few?

Im not doing too much for it.. I don't think you need in depth details for the examiner, so I'm doing broad overview on all the rights.. I know there is about 30 but I have about a sentence and case on the least important ones and about a page to page and half on the more important ones..

Doing Seperation of Powers, although don't really understand.. The manual uses way to fancy commentary than I can comprehend..

After that, bit on the President, AG and Oireachtas..
Trials in due course of law (very broad)

That's about it... Kinda hoping for a handy paper, but the way these Fe1s have been going, I'll be lucky if I pass one :P

Dave Freeman

I have the 2013 Constitutional Law seminar by Eoin Carolan (the FE1 examiner) which lists the most important cases for the last year, would be willing to swap for any 2012/2013 exam solutions that can be emailed.

Ownleme

michelle2000 wrote: »

Crap is that what it was about? Purpose and not charity? Can anyone clarify?

Didn't see either of those. Just noticed certainties. Thought purpose was Hugh and George in q8

michelle2000

Ownleme wrote: »

Didn't see either of those. Just noticed certainties. Thought purpose was Hugh and George in q8

Im not sure maybe im wrong? The first part of the q was about certainty of objects and certainty of intention right? But then what was the implication of the resulting trust to the history society?

Ownleme

michelle2000 wrote: »

Im not sure maybe im wrong? The first part of the q was about certainty of objects and certainty of intention right? But then what was the implication of the resulting trust to the history society?

Oh was that unincorporated association no?

lemonliman

Would anyone be able to send me an up to date const grid- think mine is wrong and freaking. This will be the third in a row- so tired!

Milkypops

Ownleme wrote: »

Didn't see either of those. Just noticed certainties. Thought purpose was Hugh and George in q8

Question 8 was re osaba I think?

TheGreaterFool

Sorry yes it was unicorporated associations, which is with purpose trusts in my notes for some reason - and bundled with it in my head too!

Dave Freeman

I have the 2013 Constitutional Law seminar by Eoin Carolan (the FE1 examiner) which lists the 10 most important cases for the last year, can email it on if any one would be willing to send me 2012 or 2013 sample answers for any subject or any examiners reports upto 2013.

Caoileann

Heres hoping for a nice constitutional paper! Good night and good luck