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

sapphire309

starbar91 wrote: »

Does med neg ever come up as part of professional neg? Can it be left out?

I think medical negligence is due a run, so wouldn't leave it out

yournerd

are people covering family home property? its so long...

Fergalr2092

yournerd wrote: »

are people covering family home property? its so long...

I covered it but focused on legislative hanes to the protection of family property.
So i focused on Family Home Protection Act 1976, CPA 2010, Marriage Act 2015, Family Law Act 1995, Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 and the Succession Act 1965.

Gunslinger92

Tort:
Anyone any advice as to being sure its vicarious liability being asked and not employers liability? My grid is saying that a particular question one year was vicarious liability but the examiners report said it was employers.. I know pranks by a colleague would fall under vicarious.
I'm afraid I'll launch into one when it's the actually the other!

TemptationWaits

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Tort:
Anyone any advice as to being sure its vicarious liability being asked and not employers liability? My grid is saying that a particular question one year was vicarious liability but the examiners report said it was employers.. I know pranks by a colleague would fall under vicarious.
I'm afraid I'll launch into one when it's the actually the other!

I was confused by that one too! But if you look very closely at the examiner's report he says that the issue is an employer's liability as opposed to Employers' Liability. Basically - the employer is vicariously liable. I guess when it comes to employer's liability it's always the employee who suffers whereas with vicarious liability it's often the customer.

FreeFallin94

For vicarious liability, does the close connection test from Lister and approved in O'Keefe / McGowan apply outside of sexual abuse cases? Like if I got a problem question where I had to discuss whether an employee was acting in the course of employment, would I apply that test even if it had nothing to do with abuse? Thanks in advance!

sapphire309

Looks like we're all hitting vicarious liability at the same time!

Can anyone help me out with case law regarding practical jokes in the workplace? The only one I can find is Hough v Irish Base Metals, where the employer wasn't vicariously liable for the actions of the employees...
I have a sample answer for March 2015 Q3 on practical jokes, but it doesn't give any case law examples of similar situations.

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Gunslinger92

sapphire309 wrote: »

Looks like we're all hitting vicarious liability at the same time!

Can anyone help me out with case law regarding practical jokes in the workplace? The only one I can find is Hough v Irish Base Metals, where the employer wasn't vicariously liable for the actions of the employees...
I have a sample answer for March 2015 Q3 on practical jokes, but it doesn't give any case law examples of similar situations.

Any help would be greatly appreciated

I have Graham v Commerical Bodyworks (2015), setting a colleague's clothes on fire was a prank and so was a frolic for which the employer was not liable

ArthurDayne

angela1711 wrote: »

Property

Do you guys think I should be okay with just:
-Succession Law
-Easements
-Licences
-Adverse Possession
-Co-ownership

I still have loads of study left for equity and don't really have time to cover another topic for property.
Also,
Equity

Specific Performance
Estoppel
Tracing
Trustees
Express Trust
Charitable/purpose trust
Resulting Trust
Undue Influence
Rectification

Am I being really unwise by not covering injunctions ? I know they are a definite question but I just feel there is way to much study. Should I be okay with above without injunctions ?

For Equity -- you could possssssibly get away with it. You could mitigate the risk somewhat by covering at least Mareva injunctions? I think Mareva and/or Quia Timet could feature.

UC

Smurf777 wrote: »

Can any kind soul shed some light on co ownership for me?

I thought I had it sorted today and then I looked at the March 2017 Problem Question One. :-/

Is anyone after working on this question/familiar with it that can shed some light on it for me?

It would be very much appreciated.

March 2017 problem Q came up before in Oct 2011 which I have sample answers for. I'll PM you link

Bigdreamer123

Can anyone clarify something for me for Equity?

The test for quia timet injunctions.
I can't seem to get it clear in my head.

Do you just have to establish a substantial risk of danger (Szabo)?
Do you then do adequacy of damages?
Then balance of convenience?

And am I right in saying test for Mandatory Interlocutory is
(1) Fair question to be tried with strong case and likely to succeed at trial.
(2) Damages are an inadequate remedy
(3) Balance of convenience lies in favour granting injunction.

Also am I right in saying perpetual injunctions have never arisen? Its not marked on my grid.

Thanks in advance!

Best of luck to everyone still with a few exams to go! We got this!

Fergalr2092

Bigdreamer123 wrote: »

Can anyone clarify something for me for Equity?

The test for quia timet injunctions.
I can't seem to get it clear in my head.

Do you just have to establish a substantial risk of danger (Szabo)?
Do you then do adequacy of damages?
Then balance of convenience?

And am I right in saying test for Mandatory Interlocutory is
(1) Fair question to be tried with strong case and likely to succeed at trial.
(2) Damages are an inadequate remedy
(3) Balance of convenience lies in favour granting injunction.

Also am I right in saying perpetual injunctions have never arisen? Its not marked on my grid.

Thanks in advance!

Best of luck to everyone still with a few exams to go! We got this!

As far as I know, the test for Quia Timet is the same as for normal interlocutory injunctions, so if it is a prohibitory interlocutory quia timet injunction, you will apply Campus Oil, and if it is a mandatory interlocutory quia timet injunction you will apply either campus oil or the Maha Lingam test (strong and clear case which would reassure the court that the same order would be granted at trial on the merits).

For Szabo, the court applied the Boswell test - substantial risk of danger. But that was also because in Szabo the court wasn't comfortable applying campus oil when the conveniences to balance were commercial interests versus children's health. However, in National Irish Bank v RTE the two parties were commercial entities with a commercial dispute so the court applied pure Campus Oil and balance of conveniences.

So, that is possibly something to note, distinguishing between purely commercial interests and other interests.

yournerd

Quia Timet Injunction( prohibitory interloc) or Mareva Injunction( or both)

Problem Question on Trustees
Essay question on doctrine of Cy pres

Rescission

Rectification and SP- Problem question
Rescission on grounds of Undue Influence

Constructive Trusts- knowing receipt/dishonest assistance- essay
Resulting Trusts- presumption of advancement

Would love the same for property if anyone had!

Tony_TwoLegs

ArthurDayne wrote: »

angela1711 wrote: »

Property

Do you guys think I should be okay with just:
-Succession Law
-Easements
-Licences
-Adverse Possession
-Co-ownership

I still have loads of study left for equity and don't really have time to cover another topic for property.
Also,
Equity

Specific Performance
Estoppel
Tracing
Trustees
Express Trust
Charitable/purpose trust
Resulting Trust
Undue Influence
Rectification

Am I being really unwise by not covering injunctions ? I know they are a definite question but I just feel there is way to much study. Should I be okay with above without injunctions ?

For Equity -- you could possssssibly get away with it. You could mitigate the risk somewhat by covering at least Mareva injunctions? I think Mareva and/or Quia Timet could feature.

I think be able to do a Mareva essay. Bullet point out the topic and learn it in case you're stuck.
If Injunctions have you stumped (they do that) spend the time wisely elsewhere as you'll get tied up with the various strands and make a mess of it. Easy to do. If you start trying to learn the campus oil tests etc you'll spend ages on it. That's just my opinion. There's 8 questions. Now you're down to 7 though.

Bigdreamer123

Thanks for your reply.

So if we get a prohibitory interlocutory quia timet injunction, say the fish farm or quarrying question, what are the steps I would need to go through for it?

I'm just confused because the focus in a quia timet problem seems to be on the uncertainty of the future fear materialising. So what are the other steps?

Are you saying it would be the mandatory interlocutory prohibitory test so Campus Oil
(1) Bona fide question to be tried.
(2) Balance of convenience (incl adequacy of damages here)

Also in speaking of adequacy of damages in the interlocutory context, are we just talking about whether undertaking in damages is sufficient to compensate D if successful at main trial of action and whether damages at main trial would be sufficient to compensate P for failing to grant the injunction. [As opposed to say Patterson v Murphy or Kennaway v Thompson in relation to damages which are related to perpetual injunctions and damages in that context].

Thank you for your help. I have an awful tendency to leave this issues fester in my head then second guess myself in the exam and mess the whole answer up.

Fergalr2092

Bigdreamer123 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

So if we get a prohibitory interlocutory quia timet injunction, say the fish farm or quarrying question, what are the steps I would need to go through for it?

I'm just confused because the focus in a quia timet problem seems to be on the uncertainty of the future fear materialising. So what are the other steps?

Are you saying it would be the mandatory interlocutory prohibitory test so Campus Oil
(1) Bona fide question to be tried.
(2) Balance of convenience (incl adequacy of damages here)

Also in speaking of adequacy of damages in the interlocutory context, are we just talking about whether undertaking in damages is sufficient to compensate D if successful at main trial of action and whether damages at main trial would be sufficient to compensate P for failing to grant the injunction. [As opposed to say Patterson v Murphy or Kennaway v Thompson in relation to damages which are related to perpetual injunctions and damages in that context].

Thank you for your help. I have an awful tendency to leave this issues fester in my head then second guess myself in the exam and mess the whole answer up.

Well as I understand it and seriously, if I have it wrong please somebody correct me so I don't get it wrong in an exam.

But if it is a prohibitory interlocutory quia timet injunction, the steps are Campus Oil, so serious question to be tried, balance of conveniences (probably implications) and the adequacy of damages.

If it was a mandatory interlocutory quia timet injuction, you would apply the Boyhan v Tribunal into the Beef Industry and Maha Lingam test of strong and clear case to reassure the court.

But it is also quie timet, so the per Szabo (which relied on AG(Boswell) v Rathmines and Pembroke Joint Hospital substantial risk of danger (near "moral certainty).

For the adequacy of damages, that isn't regarding the undertaking. The undertaking is to compensate the defendant if the action fails. The adequacy of damages requirement is for the PLaintiff to show that damages cannot right the wrong which they have suffered (or anticipate suffering for quia timet). This is shown in the case Curust Financial Services v Lowe Lack where the court stated that the damage must be impossible to compensate with damages, not just difficult to quantify.

I hope this makes sense. I am just studying it myself so.

Tony_TwoLegs

I counted about 13 other viable areas that will crop up,discounting some topics on last Equity paper.
I'd say look at Mareva, and come back to QT if you've time and a dozen other areas in your armoury. They're too convoluted for their own good imho.

Bigdreamer123

Fergalr2092 wrote: »

Well as I understand it and seriously, if I have it wrong please somebody correct me so I don't get it wrong in an exam.

But if it is a prohibitory interlocutory quia timet injunction, the steps are Campus Oil, so serious question to be tried, balance of conveniences (probably implications) and the adequacy of damages.

If it was a mandatory interlocutory quia timet injuction, you would apply the Boyhan v Tribunal into the Beef Industry and Maha Lingam test of strong and clear case to reassure the court.

But it is also quie timet, so the per Szabo (which relied on AG(Boswell) v Rathmines and Pembroke Joint Hospital substantial risk of danger (near "moral certainty).

For the adequacy of damages, that isn't regarding the undertaking. The undertaking is to compensate the defendant if the action fails. The adequacy of damages requirement is for the PLaintiff to show that damages cannot right the wrong which they have suffered (or anticipate suffering for quia timet). This is shown in the case Curust Financial Services v Lowe Lack where the court stated that the damage must be impossible to compensate with damages, not just difficult to quantify.

I hope this makes sense. I am just studying it myself so.

The reason I'm stuck is because in the sample answer I have for that fish farming question, the answer almost exclusively talks about whether there is a proven substantial risk of danger. It really just talks about Szabo and Boswell etc and goes through how that line of case law developed [in a problem situation which I think is a bit irrelevant but anyhow,]. There is no structure to the answer really. I like my answers to start with this is the test and then I go through each element. I don't understand what that test would be for Quia Timet Interlocutory.

Do we maybe just say that quia timet effects the mandatory interlocutory test in the sense that "is there a fair question to be tried" is more difficult to prove because of the substantial risk of danger test is Szabo?
Or forget about Campus oil altogether and just talk about the Szabo line of quia timet stuff?

Fergalr2092

Bigdreamer123 wrote: »

The reason I'm stuck is because in the sample answer I have for that fish farming question, the answer almost exclusively talks about whether there is a proven substantial risk of danger. It really just talks about Szabo and Boswell etc and goes through how that line of case law developed [in a problem situation which I think is a bit irrelevant but anyhow,]. There is no structure to the answer really. I like my answers to start with this is the test and then I go through each element. I don't understand what that test would be for Quia Timet Interlocutory.

Do we maybe just say that quia timet effects the mandatory interlocutory test in the sense that "is there a fair question to be tried" is more difficult to prove because of the substantial risk of danger test is Szabo?
Or forget about Campus oil altogether and just talk about the Szabo line of quia timet stuff?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, that 'substantial risk of danger' is the new 'fair question to be tried'. But I think I remember something to the effect of the 'substantial risk of danger' is an evidentiary burden but the test remains the same....it is highly confusing.

Chuckler

Like you, I was out of law for a few years...sat FE-1's relying on own notes and failed miserably. Attend one of the Grind Schools and learn off the manuals...worked for me.

Bigdreamer123

Fergalr2092 wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, that 'substantial risk of danger' is the new 'fair question to be tried'. But I think I remember something to the effect of the 'substantial risk of danger' is an evidentiary burden but the test remains the same....it is highly confusing.

Yeah I would tend to agree. The manual doesn't seem very clear on it!

Thanks for your help! Best of luck with it!

sapphire309

Is it safe to leave out Rylands v Fletcher, seeing as it came up last year?
Or is that a really silly move... ?

Fergalr2092

Bigdreamer123 wrote: »

Yeah I would tend to agree. The manual doesn't seem very clear on it!

Thanks for your help! Best of luck with it!

I hope that did help and didn't just make it worse. No problem, you too.

david_etc

sapphire309 wrote: »

Is it safe to leave out Rylands v Fletcher, seeing as it came up last year?
Or is that a really silly move... ?

I'm not optimistic on it coming up but would love it as it's very very easy to apply.

I think Nuisance is a banker.

flyingdog

Can anyone please help me with Property March 2017 Q1. It relates to co-ownership.
4 close friends bought apartment in equal share. Friend A sold interest to friend B.
B made will leaving to son.
C & D later moved out and want rent from B or apartment sold.

My question is in relation to the effect of one friend selling there interest to another on the right of survivorship.

My notes say acquisition of additional interest means the other tenants are Joint Tenancy but stand as one in Tenancy in Common in relation to the acting tenant.

Does this mean B became a TIC when he acquired A's interest, and thus is able to defeat the right of survivorship? Or does the rule in 30.1 LCLRA mean acquiring A's share was void and everything remains as JT?

And am I right in saying they can't request rent (Henderson v Eason) so only option is to request partition/sale?

Thanks for any help!

Gunslinger92

Good luck to my fellow tort-sitters. I am very calm one second and convinced I'm screwed the next :pac:

Tony_TwoLegs

Anyone have an Essay for Constructive Trusts and Knowing/Assisting?
Seem to be missing info and book is a bit convoluted.
I've any other answers to swap.

curlyheadedfck

Equity:

Does anyone know why Mareva/Quia Timet are being tipped? Looking at my grid, mandatory interlocutory is the one that is due a run the most? Maybe my grid is wrong though.

Tony_TwoLegs

curlyheadedfck wrote: »

Equity:

Does anyone know why Mareva/Quia Timet are being tipped? Looking at my grid, mandatory interlocutory is the one that is due a run the most? Maybe my grid is wrong though.

Yeah it would be folly to disregard anything really. Albeit, Anton Piller is highly unlikely.
Mandatory IJ could show but these tend to be essay Q. Therefore, both MI and QT (pq) might be on it. Of course, she might throw a curve ball, and neither be on it. Campus Oil departure might be asked.

Gomzu

I’ve realised looking through my notes that I’ve not done Anton Piller at all! What’s the likelihood that it’ll come up again?

Edit: also nothing on Bauer injunctions!! 😳