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

Inmyownworld

Ah I found it, it used to be permitted but was found to be unconstitutional in Damache v DPP & Ors, person issuing the warrant should be independent.

safc_pete

Property was...OK...I guess. No family property which ****ed me over a bit. Succession Qs were worded strangely too. But straightforward AP and finding Qs hopefully got me over the line.

Offside

Was i missing something or were the co-ownership q's too narrow? Just didn't have much to write and I only really realised when i was deep in I would have been better off doing another succession q instead..

liizzlemon

safc_pete wrote: »

Property was...OK...I guess. No family property which ****ed me over a bit. Succession Qs were worded strangely too. But straightforward AP and finding Qs hopefully got me over the line.

I thought the same, no family prop was a b*tch,as for finding,I think I'm over thinking it but is there an issue with him finding it under the ground??cause his foot went through the floorboard?or is it the usual chimney sweep,British airways on the surface?

liizzlemon

Offside wrote: »

Was i missing something or were the co-ownership q's too narrow? Just didn't have much to write and I only really realised when i was deep in I would have been better off doing another succession q instead..

yeah not much to say other than vesting in sole owner\partition or sale,really limited.

kiwi33

I really wished that there was a family property then I would have definitely knew i passed.. but I feel it went okay.. I just didn't like the way the succession question was worded.. finding question went well. It's just so hard to predict if I got over the line when this is my first exam ever! Time will tell

Milkypops

i know this is a random enough question but is there anybody in the redcow at the moment with a spare hair tie? im after losing my only one

MissLeo

Was the first part of.q1 in property this morning about intestacy? Please say yes...

safc_pete

liizzlemon wrote: »

I thought the same, no family prop was a b*tch,as for finding,I think I'm over thinking it but is there an issue with him finding it under the ground??cause his foot went through the floorboard?or is it the usual chimney sweep,British airways on the surface?

I wrote about the difference between the two. If it was on the ground, finders keepers (Amory v Delamarie, Parker). If it was in the ground, the owner has title (Hannah v Peel, I think).

LawCQ91

MissLeo wrote: »

Was the first part of.q1 in property this morning about intestacy? Please say yes...

MissLeo wrote: »

Was the first part of.q1 in property this morning about intestacy? Please say yes...

Urgh , I wrote about the validity of the will, and if it's not valid then intestacy will apply( mentioned intestacy in one line) .. Children have no right under 117 because everything was left for the wife , the wife is presumed to be able to take care of the child .. Mentioned s.97and s.98 I said the grandchild will take johns share , and the wife would get all the share provided she didn't kill the husband ...

kiwi33

MissLeo wrote: »

Was the first part of.q1 in property this morning about intestacy? Please say yes...

I don't think it was cos it mentioned that julie had a will and john had a will? I thought maybe we were to talk about the legal right share and childrens but i could have been completely wrong.

missindigo123

Anyone any ideas on where to start for Criminal Law?

There isnt much to leave out really?

safc_pete

Offside wrote: »

Was i missing something or were the co-ownership q's too narrow? Just didn't have much to write and I only really realised when i was deep in I would have been better off doing another succession q instead..

They were very narrow. It was very hard to find much to write at all. I just did Part 7 of the LCLRA and how you can sell because it's a TIC rather than a JT.

I was running out of time then so I just scribbled some BS down for Part 2.

MissLeo

I thought the owner had title in Elwes v Briggs but not in Hannah v Peel as the owner of the property left it idle? oops..

MissLeo

kiwi33 wrote: »

I don't think it was cos it mentioned that julie had a will and john had a will? I thought maybe we were to talk about the legal right share and childrens but i could have been completely wrong.

I thought they had a will but Julie left everything to her son, but the son died before she did so the will was frustrated and could not be effected therefore the will was invalid and she died intestate ... crap!

Milkypops

am guys anyone doing constitutional tomorrow?? what does one write about if art.45 comes up as an essay question....doesnt seem like theres much or am i missing something?

kiwi33

MissLeo wrote: »

I thought the owner had title in Elwes v Briggs but not in Hannah v Peel as the owner of the property left it idle? oops..

That is right as far as I'm aware

pinkvibes

missindigo123 wrote: »

Anyone any ideas on where to start for Criminal Law?

There isnt much to leave out really?

Just wondering the same thing. Is anyone else expecting to see strict liability? It hasn't come up in a while and it's a popular one with the current examiner.

tiger_cub

MissLeo wrote: »

I thought they had a will but Julie left everything to her son, but the son died before she did so the will was frustrated and could not be effected therefore the will was invalid and she died intestate ... crap!

isn't lapse one of the conditions on which a gift in a Will fails? i.e. where beneficiary pre deceases testator? The only two exceptions to this are the cy pres doctrine re charitable bequests and where a beneficiary dies leaving issue? So the grandmothers property passes to grandson as surviving child of his deceased father?

MissLeo

tiger_cub wrote: »

isn't lapse one of the conditions on which a gift in a Will fails? i.e. where beneficiary pre deceases testator? The only two exceptions to this are the cy pres doctrine re charitable bequests and where a beneficiary dies leaving issue? So the grandmothers property passes to grandson as surviving child of his deceased father?

That's what I ended up saying anyhow - I basically said her will was invalid so she died intestate as she didn't amend her will after her son died. I then set out the rules on intestacy and worked my way down (who gets what if so and so dies) concluding that the grandson got her share. I then said that Jacinta (the sons wife) wasn't entitled to any of Julie's estate as it never passed into her husband's name and that as long as her husbands will was valid, she got 100% of what he left her in his will, or if invalid she would take two third and the son would get 1/3. I then said that the grandsons inheritance would be subject to hotchpot and briefly described that. It was an oddly worded question. I was going to go on about 111 and 117 but as that came up in the other question I assumed it must have been on the necessities for a vaild will side of things...

TMJK

Was the property Q on Easements (4 characteristics) about the 4 positive tests from Ellensborough?

MissLeo

TMJK wrote: »

Was the property Q on Easements (4 characteristics) about the 4 positive tests from Ellensborough?

That's what I did it on

missindigo123

Me too!!!
One out of five aint bad hahaha

MissLeo

missindigo123 wrote: »

Me too!!!
One out of five aint bad hahaha

hahaha tell me about it

ReadyFreddy

Anyone else a bit stumped by that Co-ownership question today? Reading it, I felt like the answer to the (b) section applied to the (a) part too (Union in a sole tenant, Partition & Sale) which was weird. And what was the significance of her leaving to New Zealand? I couldn't write about the 4 unites, or severance of a JT in law or equity and termination was asked in the second part, so it was slim pickings for (a). Kinda paranoid that it wasn't a TinC at all but was a JT?? I ended up waffling on about her applying to the court and him holding the rent on trust for her in equity?? Someone fill me in?

safc_pete

MissLeo wrote: »

I thought the owner had title in Elwes v Briggs but not in Hannah v Peel as the owner of the property left it idle? oops..

You're right, I mixed them up. Feck it anyways...

safc_pete

ReadyFreddy wrote: »

Anyone else a bit stumped by that Co-ownership question today? Reading it, I felt like the answer to the (b) section applied to the (a) part too (Union in a sole tenant, Partition & Sale) which was weird. And what was the significance of her leaving to New Zealand? I couldn't write about the 4 unites, or severance of a JT in law or equity and termination was asked in the second part, so it was slim pickings for (a). Kinda paranoid that it wasn't a TinC at all but was a JT?? I ended up waffling on about her applying to the court and him holding the rent on trust for her in equity?? Someone fill me in?

I thought the same. For the first part, I said that the she could sell her own share, as it was a TIC, rather than a JT. I then wrote down some stuff about Part 7 of the LCLRA and how she could apply to the the court to get an order or partition or an order of sale. She could apply for account adjustments if the other lad was gonna be working the land for his own benefit too as she's entitled to a share of the profits.

I was stuck for time then at the end so scribbled some BS about mutual consent and death for the second part.

All in all though, there wasn't a huge amount to write about. I'm sure I completely forgot about something here.

safc_pete

Milkypops wrote: »

am guys anyone doing constitutional tomorrow?? what does one write about if art.45 comes up as an essay question....doesnt seem like theres much or am i missing something?

I wouldn't bother with it. It's come up twice since 2006 (Oct 2010, Apr 08) and seems to be a very awkward question to answer.

Milkypops

safc_pete wrote: »

I wouldn't bother with it. It's come up twice since 2006 (Oct 2010, Apr 08) and seems to be a very awkward question to answer.

ok good my heads fried at this stage....anything else that has never/rarely come up?? im trying to cut topics left right and center here haah

Inmyownworld

Milkypops wrote: »

am guys anyone doing constitutional tomorrow?? what does one write about if art.45 comes up as an essay question....doesnt seem like theres much or am i missing something?

Would it come up as a Question on its own you reckon? I have marked down from the online recording that if it comes up as part of a problem quality leave it till the end and mention it then. I really don't feel like I've half enough covered!