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

LegalAnna

laurenburne wrote: »

That looks very good to me, I'm aiming to do pretty much the same. I'm going to get stuck into Damages today, I havnt done it yet.

I covered limitations before but I don't feel like I know it well enough at all yet. Oh fire too, I need to look at that.

Have you done causation?

Why fire? It's only come up once in the last 14 exams.. is it likely to come up this time?

qwerty1991

shellbm wrote: »

Can someone who has done property shed some light on the pass rate and marking of the exam?? Starting to get really worried about it, considering ditching it altogether and focusing on criminal and constitutional...

I will have the following covered;
1. succession
2. family property
3. adverse possession
4. co-ownership
5. easements
6. Landlord and Tenant
7. mortgages
8. systems of land registration
9. items above and below the land/treasure trove


I won't have enough time to cover anything else !!


thanks so much

Hi Shellbm

I passed land law in March and I did the same topics as you except I left out mortgages and included licenses estoppel. Had all my notes written out but only had time to properly learn them off the night before. Nearly didnt sit the exam as I felt I didnt know anything and came out convinced I failed... ended up passing. You should be grand with what you have. Normally 2 succession questions on the paper so thats 2 questions you know already. Would recommend looking at past papers as questions are repeated a lot. Good luck

laurenburne

LegalAnna wrote: »

Why fire? It's only come up once in the last 14 exams.. is it likely to come up this time?

It came up as an essay question that year so I'm going to aim to have a paragraph at least on it just in case it comes up as part of a problem question.

I say that now but I still have so much to look at. Currently looking at employer liability for the first time.

qwerty1991

Lumi77 wrote: »

Head up . You should be fine. Criminal is a really high pass rate . It's my first sitting and am only confident in criminal.
The questions will be mixed and you need to cover most of the course.
I have grid but new to forum so don't know how to give it to you

Thanks Lumi... really worried but hopefully will be ok. I only have old 2014 manuals to work off so will be googling to see if there are any recent developments.

In relation to your question re Kerrins v PAC, Im not sure of the exact judgment but I know that seperation of powers was upheld. It was found that PAC didnt make any findings in relation to Ms Kerrins but merely "utterances" and because of sop in the Constitution, the high court cannot make the members of the Oireachtas "amenable" for utterances. The only authority that can hold members ameneable for their utterances is the Oireachtas itself (I got this from an irishtimes article... they have a few on this case which may be helpful to you).

LegalAnna

laurenburne wrote: »

It came up as an essay question that year so I'm going to aim to have a paragraph at least on it just in case it comes up as part of a problem question.

I say that now but I still have so much to look at. Currently looking at employer liability for the first time.

Oh God thank you! Nearly had me freaking out! Ye I'm the same! Looking over vicarious liability for the first time and the law is so vague!

hiyakeano

Lumi77 wrote: »

Hi

Just wondering if anyone knows the final decision in the recent case of Kerrins v PAC. Please.
I can't find it.

Thanks

The citation is Kerins v McGuinness & Ors [2017] IEHC 34

You will be able to find the decision on Bailii!

laurenburne

LegalAnna wrote: »

Oh God thank you! Nearly had me freaking out! Ye I'm the same! Looking over vicarious liability for the first time and the law is so vague!

Sorry you poor thing. Yeah that wouldn't be a bad question at all but if it comes up I hope it isn't about the sexual assault cases... they are nasty cases to be reading.

shellbm

qwerty1991 wrote: »

Hi Shellbm

I passed land law in March and I did the same topics as you except I left out mortgages and included licenses estoppel. Had all my notes written out but only had time to properly learn them off the night before. Nearly didnt sit the exam as I felt I didnt know anything and came out convinced I failed... ended up passing. You should be grand with what you have. Normally 2 succession questions on the paper so thats 2 questions you know already. Would recommend looking at past papers as questions are repeated a lot. Good luck

Thanks a million, I am in the same boat as you were - I have all my notes prepared but with Constitutional and Criminal before hand I'll be tight for time learning it all off. Thanks again !!

Lumi77

qwerty1991 wrote: »

Thanks Lumi... really worried but hopefully will be ok. I only have old 2014 manuals to work off so will be googling to see if there are any recent developments.

In relation to your question re Kerrins v PAC, Im not sure of the exact judgment but I know that seperation of powers was upheld. It was found that PAC didnt make any findings in relation to Ms Kerrins but merely "utterances" and because of sop in the Constitution, the high court cannot make the members of the Oireachtas "amenable" for utterances. The only authority that can hold members ameneable for their utterances is the Oireachtas itself (I got this from an irishtimes article... they have a few on this case which may be helpful to you).

Thank you.
The old manuals for criminal should be fine. Regards access to solicitor look up dpp v Doyle case though.
Contract was hard in October so hopefully will be easier this time but if you did equity you should still overlap the two.
Regards criminal concentrate on offences. You could leave out offences against the state and definitely know defences.

BASHBAG

Hey,

Could anyone tell me if easements came up for property in the October sitting? And if so what kind of a question was it: Identifying easments, prescription etc.,


Thanks

LegalAnna

BASHBAG wrote: »

Hey,

Could anyone tell me if easements came up for property in the October sitting? And if so what kind of a question was it: Identifying easments, prescription etc.,


Thanks

I have it here in front of me. It asks you for a critical evaluation of the creation and effect of rights of way and right to light and the right to support and make suggestions for reform.
Quite specific question actually...

BASHBAG

LegalAnna wrote: »

I have it here in front of me. It asks you for a critical evaluation of the creation and effect of rights of way and right to light and the right to support and make suggestions for reform.
Quite specific question actually...

Thanks. Ya very specific in comparison to previous questions I've been looking at.

louser1

shellbm wrote: »

Can someone who has done property shed some light on the pass rate and marking of the exam?? Starting to get really worried about it, considering ditching it altogether and focusing on criminal and constitutional...

I will have the following covered;
1. succession
2. family property
3. adverse possession
4. co-ownership
5. easements
6. Landlord and Tenant
7. mortgages
8. systems of land registration
9. items above and below the land/treasure trove


I won't have enough time to cover anything else !!


thanks so much

I think you would def have enough covered with these topics. Good luck

Yohnathan

qwerty1991 wrote: »

Hi Shellbm

I passed land law in March and I did the same topics as you except I left out mortgages and included licenses estoppel. Had all my notes written out but only had time to properly learn them off the night before. Nearly didnt sit the exam as I felt I didnt know anything and came out convinced I failed... ended up passing. You should be grand with what you have. Normally 2 succession questions on the paper so thats 2 questions you know already. Would recommend looking at past papers as questions are repeated a lot. Good luck

You have more than enough and above and below the land seems to always come up. Every time the exam occurs, people say "it can't come up again" but it does. It is an easy question and then with two chapters, you have 3 questions done already. Property is probably the easiest exam in my opinion. Go for it!

Yohnathan

Does anyone have a Contract Law grid which includes the previous sitting please?

Lumi77

I have a quick question regards unenumarated rights.
Any of them in particular more important. It's such a big area and so much case law my head is giving up.
Thank you

shellbm

Lumi77 wrote: »

I have a quick question regards unenumarated rights.
Any of them in particular more important. It's such a big area and so much case law my head is giving up.
Thank you

I personally would say the right to access the courts, the right to earn a livelihood, the right to natural and constitutional justice and the right to privacy are the major ones...

OMGWACA

For criminal do people think I'd be ok to skip infanticide and euthanasia/assisted suicide or should I go over it? Trying to prioritise!

Lumi77

OMGWACA wrote: »

For criminal do people think I'd be ok to skip infanticide and euthanasia/assisted suicide or should I go over it? Trying to prioritise!

You should be OK

the great communicator

Lumi77 wrote: »

You should be OK

Sexual Assault
Non Fatal Offences
Homicide
Offences v Property
Defences

Know a case or for each of the different aspects of the above.

Minor v Non Minor offences
Mens Rea
Actus Reus

Know enough to write an essay on each of the aspects of the above.

Lumi77

the great communicator wrote: »

Sexual Assault
Non Fatal Offences
Homicide
Offences v Property
Defences

Know a case or for each of the different aspects of the above.

Minor v Non Minor offences
Mens Rea
Actus Reus

Know enough to write an essay on each of the aspects of the above.

Should be OK but I'll check my notes tomorow and let u know

hiyakeano

For Constitutional Law, would anyone be able to briefly explain which area Miley v EAT (2016) would fit in to, and its relevance?

Don't know if it's lack of sleep or what but I can't seem to grasp the case or even its basic principles at all

Thanks!!

MurphyL

hiyakeano wrote: »

For Constitutional Law, would anyone be able to briefly explain which area Miley v EAT (2016) would fit in to, and its relevance?

Don't know if it's lack of sleep or what but I can't seem to grasp the case or even its basic principles at all

Thanks!![/quote

I'm the exact same everything is mushing into one.. also if anyone can do the same for NHV v Minister for Justice I would be very thankful!

laurenburne

Anyone feeling overwhelmed by tort?

Trying to cover nearly all the topics is no fun at all. I'm panicking now feeling like a jack of all trades and a master of none. A bad jack at that.

angelicapickle

[/quote

I'm the exact same everything is mushing into one.. also if anyone can do the same for NHV v Minister for Justice I would be very thankful![/QUOTE]

This is my interpretation:
N.H.V. v. Minister for Justice [2015] The High Court refused judicial review of the decision by the Minister to refuse temporary permission to work to a Burmese national and a Cameroonian national who were asylum seekers, on the grounds that:
The Court noted that the right to work or earn a livelihood under Article 40.3 of the Constitution was a personal right but it was not absolute. It then examined the applicability of Constitutional rights for non-nationals and noted that some rights applied to them in the same manner as Irish citizens whilst others did not. The Court relied upon Ighama v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to find that the applicants as asylum seekers did not have a right to work or earn a livelihood under Article 40.3 of the Constitution. It held that the applicant’s rights to seek and obtain employment as asylum seekers in the State are regulated entirely by the statutory provisions. The Court also stated that it was “satisfied that even if the applicants had a constitutional right to work or earn a livelihood under Article 40.3, the scope and exercise of such rights may be defined and regulated pursuant to the very wide power which the State has to control aliens and their entry into the State.
Judge Geoghegan recognised that to work or earning a livelihood may not be solely concerned with an economic activity, but may also contribute to a person’s sense of dignity or wellbeing. Nevertheless Article 40.3 cannot be construed as giving to an applicant for asylum a constitutionally protected right to work or earn a livelihood within the State.
The applicant also argued the right to private life. The court rejected this and held the right to private life did not encompass a derived right to work or earn a livelihood by an asylum seeker who has been granted leave to enter and remain in the State on the condition that he/she will not seek or enter employment.

the great communicator

laurenburne wrote: »

Anyone feeling overwhelmed by tort?

Trying to cover nearly all the topics is no fun at all. I'm panicking now feeling like a jack of all trades and a master of none. A bad jack at that.

I feel literally exactly the same! You saying that has made me feel a bit better though

ArthurDayne

binkevii wrote: »

Duty of care/Standard of care
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Economic Loss
Nervous Shock
Medical Negligence
Employers' liability
Vicarious liability
Liability for defective products
Defamation
Tresspass to Land/Nuisance/Rylands v Fletcher
Liability for Animals/Fire
Damages
Limitations of Actions

Is it enough?? what should I add?

Pardon any ignorance on my behalf here but is there a particular reason you've honed in on medical negligence rather than professional negligence as a whole?

Thanks

graduate555

Lumi77 wrote: »

I have a quick question regards unenumarated rights.
Any of them in particular more important. It's such a big area and so much case law my head is giving up.
Thank you

From past papers seems like they ask right to earn a livelihood in problem questions and privacy as an essay question a few times - that's just my overall impression of what stood out while skimming through papers, I'm also focusing on access to court/litigate and procedural (haughey) rights

laurenburne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Pardon any ignorance on my behalf here but is there a particular reason you've honed in on medical negligence rather than professional negligence as a whole?

Thanks

I presume it's because professional negligence for an accountant or something like that came up the last time. It was more of a negligent misstatement question though if i remember correctly.

Professional negligence generally comes up as a medical negligence question, I don't think it hasn't featured in a good while, although solicitors negligence and the likes is examinable too.

But at this late stage if I had to choose id be focusing on medical negligence if you are choosing between the two. Of course if you can cover it all that's a much better situation to be in. The two overlap a bit.

ArthurDayne

laurenburne wrote: »

I presume it's because professional negligence for an accountant or something like that came up the last time. It was more of a negligent misstatement question though if i remember correctly.

Professional negligence generally comes up as a medical negligence question, I don't think it hasn't featured in a good while, although solicitors negligence and the likes is examinable too.

But at this late stage if I had to choose id be focusing on medical negligence if you are choosing between the two. Of course if you can cover it all that's a much better situation to be in. The two overlap a bit.

Cheers, yea I'm trying to be as economic as I can with a reasonable level of risk! Then again, the man on the Clapham omnibus might have started studying for these around Christmas if he wanted to be sure of passing !