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

legalspeelman

Heart Shaped Box wrote: »

Anyone willing to share which topics they're focusing on for constitutional??

Are there any topics (other than constitutional interpretation) which are safe to cut out?? Or would I be totally misguided leaving anything out (1st time fe1 sitter)

Can I ask why you would be leaving out constitutional interpretation? A question frequently appears on the constitutional paper in respect of this chapter?

Also, I'd say you are safe to leave out: International law and the Constitution / War and National Emergency / Liberty?

Teamhrach

holliek wrote: »

Ok thank you! Within fiduciary relationships do I look at special bribes, company directors and all that? or is that another section?

I think that's it! You're undergrad materials would probably get you by on the fiduciary question - just make sure there's nothing fresher in the manual.

Do you think proprietary estoppel will appear? Or undue influence? There's so much!

Teamhrach

legalspeelman wrote: »

Can I ask why you would be leaving out constitutional interpretation? A question frequently appears on the constitutional paper in respect of this chapter?

Also, I'd say you are safe to leave out: International law and the Constitution / War and National Emergency / Liberty?

Cover interpretation, definitely! Its useful to just add into a question. Probably okay to leave out trial in due course/liberty.
National emergency - know the basics, I think its appeared as part of a pq before and not a whole lot to it other than what's in the constitution??

legalspeelman

Teamhrach wrote: »

Cover interpretation, definitely! Its useful to just add into a question. Probably okay to leave out trial in due course/liberty.
National emergency - know the basics, I think its appeared as part of a pq before and not a whole lot to it other than what's in the constitution??

Do you think it's safe to leave out trial in due course of law? It didn't appear on the March 2018 appear, and is frequent enough? I have already studied it anyway!

holliek

Teamhrach wrote: »

I think that's it! You're undergrad materials would probably get you by on the fiduciary question - just make sure there's nothing fresher in the manual.

Do you think proprietary estoppel will appear? Or undue influence? There's so much!

I'm learning both. I still have to learn estoppel but I've written out notes on it so I'll be learning it. As for undue influence, I've written notes for contract so I'll just go over them! I haven't been looking at patterns etc because I feel they'll just throw anything in.. could be wrong though.

jus_me

What does everyone feel is most important in EU?

user115

kasey0123 wrote: »

Hey everyone! Hope you’re all not too stressed approaching exams... (even though I am lol). I’m thinking it’s time to put a few reasonable predictions for papers... I need to start cutting and refining chapters I’m studying. Anyone have any thoughts on essay type qs for either contract,equity criminal?? I can share info re property as the new examiner was my undergraduate lecturer, he lives for mortgages and only recently wrote a book on JM so expect a probelm q or reform essay on mortgages. Succession and AP are certs as usual. Easements will definitely show and probably the acquisition Nd extinguishment of them.. I’m aware extinguishment doesn’t have much emphasis in the manual so have a look at a book/google. Family property, freehold estates & co-ownership also pretty likely.

Hey Kasey0123! Thanks for sharing your predictions for land really helpful, esp judgement mortgages, I had a look through March 2018 paper and pretty much what you mentioned was what was asked bar freehold estate. I wonder will influence of equity appear in this sitting. Someone mentioned both land papers were written in jan this year so Im a bit worried incase totally different stuff comes up, but I suppose there are the substantive parts that they would need to test based on that I'm gona do
-finding
- succession
- mortgages
- adverse possession
- family property
- easements
- licences and prop estoppel

For criminal its so broad I think we will just need to cover as broad amount as possible, questions are so mixed, I'm doing- most all principles of criminal law, bail, arrest, detention, homicide, assault, sexual offences, basic knowledge of all property offences, provocation, self defense, dim responsibility, insanity, intox, duress,

For contract I'm hoping I'm okay with O&A, consideration, consumer protection, mistake, misrep, remedies, discharge of contracts, pro estop and exempt clauses

What do you think of contract and criminal topics?

lawless11

jus_me wrote: »

What does everyone feel is most important in EU?

I would say:
-Institutions
-Judicial review
-All freedom of movement
-Direct Effect
-Competition
-Fundamental Rights
-Equality
-Preliminary reference also maybe?

jus_me

anyone else having a mini melt down feeling like you'll never know enough to pass

lmsc

Anybody have any tips or advice for Equity? It’s the one I’m struggling with the most atm

GingerAleSnail

lawless11, I agree but am adding in MS liability, basically so I can try and avoid having to do institutions, I find it excruciatingly boring. I have covered it as an essential topic to (try) understand the distribution of power but just don't like the past paper questions......

lawlad101

lmsc wrote: »

Anybody have any tips or advice for Equity? It’s the one I’m struggling with the most atm

I've seen a few people say new model constructive trusts are due a run in and it has rarely ever appeared! Not too sure though myself

Jimdtug1

Anybody have a post 2014 Company Law Study Manual they'd be willing to exchange for any of the others? Desperate times!

ucdlaw_2018

What are people thinking for Criminal - Essay-wise? I know omissions and bail predicted last year?

Any advice for criminal?

holliek

Is it worth learning trustees and their duties? Have notes on their duties re investments done, hoping I could get away with not doing too much more in that area. Any thoughts?

Ethan90

jus_me wrote: »

What does everyone feel is most important in EU?

Institutions
General Principles
A30/110 , A34 Goods
Direct Effect of Directives
Annulment Action
A45 Workers

Ethan90

Has anyone got any letter from the Law society about candidate number, venue ect?

I feel like I already had 2 letters by now this time last sitting.

GingerAleSnail

I haven't had anything at all, I've seen some mentions on here about people getting emails acknowledging their application.

I was going to leave it until Monday and then ring. Last sitting my exam number letter didn't come until exactly 2 weeks before

PuffleHuffLyra

Anyone have any idea as to how to approach Q3 on the March 2016 Constitutional paper?

s4 - property rights?
s11 - freedom of expression?
s12 - ... property rights?

Not really sure how I'd go about that.

lindenberg2012

Hey, finding it very difficult to remember the correct year for every case. Is it ok to just cite the case name or should I spend time learning all the years? Many thanks

holliek

lindenberg2012 wrote: »

Hey, finding it very difficult to remember the correct year for every case. Is it ok to just cite the case name or should I spend time learning all the years? Many thanks

I haven’t learnt the years, assuming the names will be enough considering the volume of cases to be learnt

Supermax1988

holliek wrote: »

Is it worth learning trustees and their duties? Have notes on their duties re investments done, hoping I could get away with not doing too much more in that area. Any thoughts?

Depends on how you're fixed for time but I think it's worth covering it all. It's a relatively small area and it has come up on 10 of the last 12 papers.

sapphire309

lindenberg2012 wrote: »

Hey, finding it very difficult to remember the correct year for every case. Is it ok to just cite the case name or should I spend time learning all the years? Many thanks

Out of all 3 exams I did last sitting, I think I mentioned 4 dates in total. Really don't think they are necessary, unless you were commenting on how a doctrine has developed over the years or something. Even then, exact dates probably aren't expected.

Ethan90

lindenberg2012 wrote: »

Hey, finding it very difficult to remember the correct year for every case. Is it ok to just cite the case name or should I spend time learning all the years? Many thanks

I didn't mention dates in any of the exams I passed last sitting, except for 2017 or 2018 cases to try show off that I knew recent case law.

lawless11

Just a quick question for anyone doing Equity please - I have the City manual, and in the Chapter on Rescission, there is a part on Equitable Interests & Equities? Is this part important (the distinction mere/naked equities etc.)? Has it been on previous exams? Can I throw it away because I hate it?

Otherwise, what are people leaving out for Equity?
I'm not learning secret trusts (even if it's maybe due a run, didn't do it in college, and have no space in my brain left to learn new things), and also ditching out the small doctrines of election/satisfaction/conversion. Not going over Mareva injunctions. Considering not doing the Equitable interests & Equities. Ohterwise I'd say low probability on DMC & Rule of Strong v Bird.

lawlad101

lawless11 wrote: »

Just a quick question for anyone doing Equity please - I have the City manual, and in the Chapter on Rescission, there is a part on Equitable Interests & Equities? Is this part important (the distinction mere/naked equities etc.)? Has it been on previous exams? Can I throw it away because I hate it?

Otherwise, what are people leaving out for Equity?
I'm not learning secret trusts (even if it's maybe due a run, didn't do it in college, and have no space in my brain left to learn new things), and also ditching out the small doctrines of election/satisfaction/conversion. Not going over Mareva injunctions. Considering not doing the Equitable interests & Equities. Ohterwise I'd say low probability on DMC & Rule of Strong v Bird.

The note question hardly changes though. I was going to leave out some of the stuff you said but ive now prepared a few really bulllet point answers on note topics like Strong v Bird, Advancement, satisfaction, Hastings Bass etc. Its more just to cover myself if I'm stuck!

Yes secret trusts don't seem worth it for how confusing they can be so I think I'm going to leave that out too!

Blazedup

Anyone know a rough outline to this question?
Explain, by reference to case law, how a "dominant" position can be held by "one or more undertakings" under Art 102 TFEU?

Anyone know a rough outline to this question?
Explain, by reference to case law, how a "dominant" position can be held by "one or more undertakings" under Art 102 TFEU?

This may be the answer:
Collective/joint dominance
• “Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position” (Article 102 TFEU)
• Joined cases, T-68/89 etc, Italian Flat Glass
◦ “There is nothing, in principle, to prevent two or more independent economic entities from being, on a
specific market, united by such economic links that, by virtue of that fact, together they hold a
dominant position vis-à-vis the other operators on the same market. This could be the case, for
example, where two or more independent undertakings jointly have, through agreements or licences,
a technological lead affording them the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of
their competitors, their customers and ultimately of their consumers” (para 358)
• Case C-393/92, Almelo
◦ “in order for such a collective dominant position to exist, the undertakings in the group must be linked
in such a way that they adopt the same conduct on the market”
• Forente saker C-395/96, Compagnie Maritime Belge
◦ “The existence of a collective dominant position may therefore flow from the nature and terms of an
agreement, from the way in which it is implemented and, consequently, from the links or factors which
give rise to a connection between undertakings which result from it. Nevertheless, the existence of an
agreement or of other links in law is not indispensable to a finding of a collective dominant position;
such a finding may be based on other connecting factors and would depend on an economic
assessment and, in particular, on an assessment of the structure of the market in question.” (para 45)
• The key issue: economic links
◦ In short: The links must unite the undertakings in such a way that they adopt the same conduct on the market
• The characteristics necessary to define a (joint) position as dominant are the same as those which
apply to single dominant positions

---

Before the European Courts developed the concept of joint dominance a gap
existed in EC competition law, particularly in relation to oligopolistic markets where
firms were acting in parallel, rather than in direct coordination with each other within
the meaning of Article 101. In the Italian Flat Glass case the CFI recognised the
Commission’s argument of joint or collective dominance. The Commission’s argued
that where two undertakings acted as a single entity resulting in the adoption of
common policies in the market, anti-competitiveness occurred. Collective dominance
was found to exist in the flat glass market based on the facts that the undertakings
formed part of a tight oligopoly with a total market share of 80% and there were links
in the structures of the undertakings and agreements or concerted practices between
the undertakings having the effect that the undertakings effectively acted as an
individual entity. In Italian Flat Glass, the court defined the concept of joint
dominance as undertakings being united through other competitors in the market as
a result of economic links existing between the undertakings.

In Kali Slaz the court assessed the types of economic links that could be required to
prove that undertakings were collectively dominant. This would involve an
assessment of dominance and an assessment of the market. The court considered
that factors indicating correlation or parallel behaviour were highly relevant. This
case involved a joint market share of 60% of the potash market where the parties
controlled of a joint venture and cooperated in an export cartel. The court then gave
a definition of collective dominance:

“whether the concentration ... leads to a situation in which effective competition in
the relevant market is significantly impeded by the undertakings which together, in
particular because of factors giving rise to a connection between them, are able to
adopt a common policy on the market and act to a considerable extent independently
of their competitors, their customers, and also of consumers.”

The later cases of IJM and DIP saw the ECJ take a view that collective dominance
could be used to explain a situation where the undertakings adopt the same conduct
on the market. In Compagnie Maritime Belge, a number of liners were found to have
collective dominance when they acted unilaterally to eliminate another competitor.

The requirement of links between the companies was found to exist because there
was a set decision making structure in place which allowed the undertakings to form
and act in a uniform manner.

The concept of joint dominance had been applied to Merger Regulation in Alcatel
and was successfully applied to reject a merger between bottelled water companies
Nestle & Perrier.

The court in Gencor stated that joint dominance could be found
based on structural links or market structure, the CFI found that the likelihood of
parallel pricing would be increased by the proposed merger and held that joint
dominance could occur, even in the absence of structural links The ECJ has
developed the Commission’s concept of collective dominance through a number of
cases and has applied it to Art. 102 situations and to Merger Regulation.

This concept fills the gap in Competition law and aims to prevent parallel behavior that
impedes the operation of competitiveness


The concept: three elements
• The entities must be independent economic entities
◦ If they constitute a single economic unit they are regarded as one undertaking
• The undertakings must be united through “economic links”
◦ The links should unite the undertakings in such a way that they adopt the same
conduct on the market
• The Commission: The undertakings in question must have the same position
vis-à-vis their customers and competitors as a single company with a
dominant position would have
◦ There must be no effective competition between the companies
• By virtue of the economic links the undertakings must together hold
a dominant position

“Links”
• Actual links
◦ Contracts
◦ Licences
◦ Joint agents
◦ Cross-shareholdings
◦ Joint administration
◦ The sharing of a common infrastructure
• Economic or structural links
◦ Tacit collusion in a tight oligopoly
◦ Case T-102/96, Gencor/Lonhro (EUMR decision, but the same applies to Article 102)
• “There is no whatsoever in legal or economic terms to exclude from the notion of economic
links the relationship of interdependence existing between the parties to a tight oligopoly
within which, in a market with the appropriate characteristics, in particular in terms of market
concentration, transparency and product homogeneity, those parties are in a position to
anticipate one another’s behaviour and are therefore strongly encouraged to align their
conduct in the market, in particular in such a way as to maximise their joint profits by
restricting production with a view to increase prices

Ngannou54

Constitutional Law Question 1, October 2015 ‘There has been a noticeable evolution in judicial attitudes to freedom of expression so that the Irish Courts now provide robust constitutional protection to the position and privileges of the press’. Do you agree? You should refer in your answer to specific decisions of the Irish Courts.

Does anyone know what the relevant legislation is here? Or has there been any recent legislative developments?

legalspeelman

Anybody have a general outline of how to answer this causation question in Tort? Q7, October 2017. What cases should I mention and would you discuss material contribution?

"Bill operated a restaurant in a threatre district of the city. His was a popular spot for pre and post theatre dining and he was regularly full to capacity. As he was limited by the physical capacity constraints of the building he was operating from, he had begun preparation for offering a catering service to external venues where he would cook food and deliver it to business and private residences

About a week before Bill was due to launch his new business, Cro-Mangon Construction negligently destroyed a water mains while working on a nearby building. This resulted in Bill's restaurant having no water and as a result, it had to temporarily close. However, when Cro-Mangon Construction attempted to repair the break in the water mains, the water company insisted that the entire pipe be replaced with new modern pipework which had to be specially made in Germany and shipping to Ireland. This would take about 4 weeks during which Bill's restaurant would be without a mains water supply.

In an effort to minimise the disruption to Bill, Cro-Mangon Construction connected a temporary water supply to the restaurant through a tanker of water located at the rear of bill's restaurant. Unfortunately, Cro-Mangon sourced the tanker from Waster oil containers, and although it had been steam cleaned and was capable of being used for drinking water, the tanker was still labelled: "Not for drinking water". After bill had used all the water in the tanker, Cro-Mangon arranged for it to be refilled by Acme Water Suppliers. When the tanker was being refilled, the driver, spotting the sign "not for drinking water" decided to fill the tank with non-drinking water without asking anyone.

As a result, many of Bill's customers at the restaurant became sick. Even worse, despite professional advice not to start his external catering service until full water services had been resumed, Bill catered for an office function resulting in even more people becoming sick.

Cro-Mangon construction accepted that they were responsible for the break in the mains but claim that they could have fixed that within a day and are therefore not responsible for anything beyond one day's loss of water supply.

Advise Bill as to whether Cro-Mangon is the cause of his losses and the extent, if any, to which such losses might be too remote in the law of tort.

Smiley283

In Re Varko Ltd in liquidation (2012) Gilligan j expressed the view that the 'new model constructive trust has met with limited approval in this jurisdiction. Consider making reference to relevant case law, the use made by the Irish Courts of the new model constructive trust.

Only making out sample essays for this topic now after reading posts on this thread. (I really appreciate all the tips)

Would learning other jurisdictions approach be a waste of ink and time considering the question asks about Ireland? Do I consider remedial constructive trusts and new model constructive trusts to be as one or should do I briefly mention remedial trusts in this essay?