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

NewNewBird

Has any here ever bought material from this website?
https://www.fe1s.com/
I just seem to be going round in circles with reams of notes from manuals. This caught my attention a few weeks ago and now I’m wondering if the study note packs they’re offering could be condensed enough in helping me whittle down my own?

Gunslinger92

ArthurDayne wrote: »

What cases are people focusing on for the case note question in EU?

Zambrano, Microsoft v Commission, Kadi - they weren't on last paper. Pringle was but it seems to be on it every year. Two or three others then should cover it

annmc882

NewNewBird wrote: »

Has any here ever bought material from this website?
https://www.fe1s.com/
I just seem to be going round in circles with reams of notes from manuals. This caught my attention a few weeks ago and now I’m wondering if the study note packs they’re offering could be condensed enough in helping me whittle down my own?

I contacted months back and they never got back to me.

NewNewBird

annmc882 wrote: »

I contacted months back and they never got back to me.

Thanks for letting me know.....panic stations had me about 5 minutes away from ordering.....back to the highlighter I go!!

annmc882

NewNewBird wrote: »

Thanks for letting me know.....panic stations had me about 5 minutes away from ordering.....back to the highlighter I go!!

What subjects ?

ArthurDayne

Guys wonder could anyone clarify this for me (Company question).

So the new Companies Accounting Act 2017 has "overturned" (for want of a better word) the ruling in Re JD Brian where a floating charge crystallises upon receipt of a crystallisation notice from the chargor. The law now states that preferential creditors' priority remains unaffected by floating charges ---- does this just relate to a crystallisaiton notice is served or does it mean that, going forward, any time a floating charge crystallises (i.e. on commencement of liquidation or appt of a receiver) it does not become a fixed charge?

yournerd

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Guys wonder could anyone clarify this for me (Company question).

So the new Companies Accounting Act 2017 has "overturned" (for want of a better word) the ruling in Re JD Brian where a floating charge crystallises upon receipt of a crystallisation notice from the chargor. The law now states that preferential creditors' priority remains unaffected by floating charges ---- does this just relate to a crystallisaiton notice is served or does it mean that, going forward, any time a floating charge crystallises (i.e. on commencement of liquidation or appt of a receiver) it does not become a fixed charge?

Under the 2014 Act, where a floating charge crystallised to a fixed charge prior to the commencement of insolvency proceedings, such a fixed charge had priority over preferential creditors.

The new position is that a floating charge, which is created as a floating charge, and whether or not that charge has crystallised, will not have priority over preferential creditors.

NewNewBird

annmc882 wrote: »

What subjects ?

Criminal, contract, tort and equity. I’ve been working with the city night before notes to try condense my own but then I go off on a tangent and start rewriting paragraphs again.....I’m hoping that something is sinking in all the same!

SteveD92

Sitting Company quite late notice. Any insight into which area of Directors most likely to appear or is due?

Teamhrach

CRIMINAL TOPICS I'm doing
- characteristics & classification
- Actus reus and mens rea
- Homocide
- NFOATP
- Incitement/conspiracy/attempt
- Defences

I could BS about fair procedure if I had to but I'm kind of stuck for time and wondering which of these people would recommend:-
- Theft Offences
- Sexual Offences (I know it appears every year)

^ I'll try to cover both in case of a PQ but didn't realise there was so much to either of them until now, oops! Sexual offences seems a bit complicated based on other posts!?

Teamhrach

NewNewBird wrote: »

Criminal, contract, tort and equity. I’ve been working with the city night before notes to try condense my own but then I go off on a tangent and start rewriting paragraphs again.....I’m hoping that something is sinking in all the same!

If you're covering NFOATP print and highlight the act, look what cases are in the manual for each offence and only write it in if it's mentioning something new not in the act.

If you have time, do flashcards or an A4 page with a few key words/cases for each section that will get you thinking

yournerd

Teamhrach wrote: »

CRIMINAL TOPICS I'm doing
- characteristics & classification
- Actus reus and mens rea
- Homocide
- NFOATP
- Incitement/conspiracy/attempt
- Defences

I could BS about fair procedure if I had to but I'm kind of stuck for time and wondering which of these people would recommend:-
- Theft Offences
- Sexual Offences (I know it appears every year)

^ I'll try to cover both in case of a PQ but didn't realise there was so much to either of them until now, oops! Sexual offences seems a bit complicated based on other posts!?

Definetely do sexual offences - sexual assault and rape primarily maybe!

LegallyBlonde2

Re Criminal:
Is it best to cover all the defences or could I narrow it down? So much to cover and so little time 🀢

annmc882

LegallyBlonde2 wrote: »

Re Criminal:
Is it best to cover all the defences or could I narrow it down? So much to cover and so little time ��

Narrow down

Fergalr2092

Realistically, how much detail is required to pass these exams? Because I find that I'm near killing myself learning like 5 cases that repeat the same principle, and it feels like this is just fluff to beef up an answer and adds very little substance (this is based on the advice provided by a prep course). Like how much of this is necessary or is one case per point enough?

Fergalr2092

LegallyBlonde2 wrote: »

Re Criminal:
Is it best to cover all the defences or could I narrow it down? So much to cover and so little time ��

Narrow down - I would focus on Lawful Use of Force, Provocation, Insanity/Diminished Responsibility, Duress and Intoxication

ArthurDayne

Fergalr2092 wrote: »

Realistically, how much detail is required to pass these exams? Because I find that I'm near killing myself learning like 5 cases that repeat the same principle, and it feels like this is just fluff to beef up an answer and adds very little substance (this is based on the advice provided by a prep course). Like how much of this is necessary or is one case per point enough?

Is this your first FE1 rodeo?

The ones I've passed -- my knowledge was nothing more than superficial (including the dreaded Constitutional and Tort). One of the most demoralising things about the FE1s is when you sit down with your final notes and realise just how little of all the reading you have done is actually being memorised. It naturally makes people panic (i.e. how after all this time can I only have 3 cases, say, for Shareholder Protection in Company).

The mind can only hold so much. Don't overblow it. Check the past papers and see what little things you don't get -- once you check them out they will stick. Beyond that -- know the basic cases .

Fergalr2092

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Is this your first FE1 rodeo?

The ones I've passed -- my knowledge was nothing more than superficial (including the dreaded Constitutional and Tort). One of the most demoralising things about the FE1s is when you sit down with your final notes and realise just how little of all the reading you have done is actually being memorised. It naturally makes people panic (i.e. how after all this time can I only have 3 cases, say, for Shareholder Protection in Company).

The mind can only hold so much. Don't overblow it. Check the past papers and see what little things you don't get -- once you check them out they will stick. Beyond that -- know the basic cases .

Thanks for the reply, yeah this is my first time and I am doing Equity, Criminal, Company and Property. Its just hard to know what to think because on the one hand the prep course said learn everything, learn it all but on the other hand a lad I work with (who has passed these and the bar exams) said the most important is giving advice when asked, even if you don't provide loads of cases, as long as you give sound comprehensive advice and yeah keep cases to the minimum to be able to answer.

Just for Criminal, it seems you need a case for every little itty bitty area that may or may not even come up or be relevant, just to show off in my opinion.

But thanks for your reply, that is reassuring, because I am retaining most of it, especially the overall issues and the general cases, but I was just worried that this wouldn't be enough.

ArthurDayne

Fergalr2092 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, yeah this is my first time and I am doing Equity, Criminal, Company and Property. Its just hard to know what to think because on the one hand the prep course said learn everything, learn it all but on the other hand a lad I work with (who has passed these and the bar exams) said the most important is giving advice when asked, even if you don't provide loads of cases, as long as you give sound comprehensive advice and yeah keep cases to the minimum to be able to answer.

Just for Criminal, it seems you need a case for every little itty bitty area that may or may not even come up or be relevant, just to show off in my opinion.

But thanks for your reply, that is reassuring, because I am retaining most of it, especially the overall issues and the general cases, but I was just worried that this wouldn't be enough.

Telling someone doing the FE1s to 'just learn everything' is the equivalent of recommending to a soldier going over the trenches to not get shot. It's a good recommendation for sure, but it's also unhelpful. You have 30 minutes per question roughly -- keep it simple and tidy -- past papers are everything. Take you weird cases from the issues that come up in those (and the examiner report) -- and a few that you personally found interesting as they tend to stick better!

You'll be fine !

Fergalr2092

Thanks a million, I appreciate that advice .

yournerd

I totally agree the best way to get things to stick is to read around it instead of just case law x10 like the supreme court book for constitutional, i read tort articles to really understand the duty of care and negligence.

LegallyBlonde2

Is R v Clegg (1995) authority for the current position of self-defence in England, that if argue self-defence you are either acquitted or guilty of murder whereas in Ireland, you are either guilty of murder or if you succeed with the defence its manslaughter?

XxMCRxBabyxX

A recommendation to you all. Don't try combine FE1s and moving out at the same time! My head is wrecked!

9292

What's getting left out for Company on Tuesday 🀓

Tony_TwoLegs

Today's schedule : Constitution.
1. President / AG
2. Proportionality
3. Constitutional Challenges
4. FoExpression vs Privacy
5. Property Rights
6. Unumerated Rights
7. Right to Life / personal rights
8. Interpretation
9. Separation of Powers

That's enough torture for one day. Getting a pain in my neck/shoulders from sitting here, writing etc

Leraf

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

A recommendation to you all. Don't try combine FE1s and moving out at the same time! My head is wrecked!

I feel your pain

Leraf

EU seriously needs to be cut down. What is everyone covering?

ArthurDayne

For EU -- leaving out Competition and the Brussels I & II stuff. Covering pretty much all else.

Competition likely to come up but I just don't have the time.

Anyone else taking this approach?

BASHBAG

For EU I'm covering:

Sources of Law
DE and MSL
Judicial Review
FMOG
Citizenship
Equality
Basic Priniciples ie: Conferral, Subsidiarity, Supremacy

I have ccepted that I dont have the time tot cover Comp law. Could people suggest the next most likely topic that I could reasonably learn with a day of study?

illy.m

Criminal - Right to have access to solicitor.

DPP v Gormley - constitutional right to have access to a solicitor.
DPP v Doyle 2017- SC held that constitutional right to fair trial includes the right to access to solicitor but it does not extend to having solicitor present during questioning. Is this case the current position on the right to access a solicitor during questioning?