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

ally1234

Up to my neck studying tort, the topics are endless!! That subject goes on and on.......

I have criminal law less than a week after the tort exam, is it possible to cram for criminal??Working full time aswell and no days off in between except the weekend. Any advice is appreciated.

jus_me

ally1234 wrote: »

Up to my neck studying tort, the topics are endless!! That subject goes on and on.......

I have criminal law less than a week after the tort exam, is it possible to cram for criminal??Working full time aswell and no days off in between except the weekend. Any advice is appreciated.

I find Criminal really short and covered it in 5 days with lots of cramming so It's doable but stressful haha

mariealice

Starting to panic slightly , this is what I have covered for Tort , don't know if its enough

-Causation/Remoteness
-Duty of care
-Professional Neg.
-Public Authorities
-Vicarious Liability
-Occupiers Liabilty
-Defective Prodcuts
-Defamation
-Trespass to person
-Trespass to Land
-Passing Off
-Liability for Animals
-Defences
-Damages
-Limitations

Is there anything else I should be covering?

yournerd

gfettig wrote: »

Has anyone a copy of the Oct 2017 Tort paper?
I have plenty of stuff to swap in return.

I do!

fe1exams2018

mariealice wrote: »

Starting to panic slightly , this is what I have covered for Tort , don't know if its enough

-Causation/Remoteness
-Duty of care
-Professional Neg.
-Public Authorities
-Vicarious Liability
-Occupiers Liabilty
-Defective Prodcuts
-Defamation
-Trespass to person
-Trespass to Land
-Passing Off
-Liability for Animals
-Defences
-Damages
-Limitations

Is there anything else I should be covering?

I'm trying to cut tort as well - I was thinking nuisance & rylands as (I think) it didn't come up last time and seems to only really skip one exam? Either together or one as a standalone

Also - is anyone else leaving out prof. neg altogether? I heard the griffith lecturer for the March sitting said it would likely only come up as a complicated question and since it didn't come up last time I don't really want to spend time on it if it's going to be difficult when I could cover some of the easier chapters

iamanengine

ally1234 wrote: »

Up to my neck studying tort, the topics are endless!! That subject goes on and on.......

I have criminal law less than a week after the tort exam, is it possible to cram for criminal??Working full time aswell and no days off in between except the weekend. Any advice is appreciated.

I don't have any help for criminal but what I'm focusing on for Tort:

I reckon Negligent Misstatement could very well come up due to the recent Walsh case.

Also think Vicarious Liability might, been flogged to death but didn't come up last sitting and has also been recent developments there in 2017.

Occupiers Liability also due a run and again, recent developments there too.

Other than that I'm focusing on, Trespass to Person, really popular but didn't come up last sitting. Nuisance, really popular, didn't come up last sitting. Passing off, hasn't come up last 3 sittings, due a run. Medical negligence, way over due a run.

Throw in General Negligence and maybe Defective Products and I'm hoping that should be enough!

I also have a weird feeling Liability for Animals might come up as a curveball...

Pyggg

iamanengine wrote: »

I don't have any help for criminal but what I'm focusing on for Tort:

I reckon Negligent Misstatement could very well come up due to the recent Walsh case.

Also think Vicarious Liability might, been flogged to death but didn't come up last sitting and has also been recent developments there in 2017.

Occupiers Liability also due a run and again, recent developments there too.

Other than that I'm focusing on, Trespass to Person, really popular but didn't come up last sitting. Nuisance, really popular, didn't come up last sitting. Passing off, hasn't come up last 3 sittings, due a run. Medical negligence, way over due a run.

Throw in General Negligence and maybe Defective Products and I'm hoping that should be enough!

I also have a weird feeling Liability for Animals might come up as a curveball...

In my grid Nuisance and Vicarious Liability both came up last sitting?

Tony_TwoLegs

mariealice wrote: »

Starting to panic slightly , this is what I have covered for Tort , don't know if its enough

-Causation/Remoteness
-Duty of care
-Professional Neg.
-Public Authorities
-Vicarious Liability
-Occupiers Liabilty
-Defective Prodcuts
-Defamation
-Trespass to person
-Trespass to Land
-Passing Off
-Liability for Animals
-Defences
-Damages
-Limitations

Is there anything else I should be covering?

Wow. You've more than enough covered.
Maybe weed it out a bit.
Don't split your time over 15 areas equally.

I'd know 8 or so really well and have a working knowledge of another 4.

Best to know 8 areas well than 15 areas mediocre. That's my philosophy. I back it up with some prayer my guess-timates pay off too

iamanengine

Pyggg wrote: »

In my grid Nuisance and Vicarious Liability both came up last sitting?

Hmm, on my grid it shows they last came up in Autumn 17.

A comment way back in this thread around the time of the the last sitting said these were the topics for last sitting:

Q1: DOC for 3rd Parties PQ
Q2: Limitation of Actions Essay
Q3: Defective Products PQ
Q4: Causation PQ
Q5: Damages Essay
Q6: Defamation PQ
Q7: Employer's Liability PQ
Q8: Nervous Shock Essay

Maybe your grid be missing the most recent sitting?

Fuguestate

iamanengine wrote: »

Hmm, on my grid it shows they last came up in Autumn 17.

A comment way back in this thread around the time of the the last sitting said these were the topics for last sitting:

Q1: DOC for 3rd Parties PQ
Q2: Limitation of Actions Essay
Q3: Defective Products PQ
Q4: Causation PQ
Q5: Damages Essay
Q6: Defamation PQ
Q7: Employer's Liability PQ
Q8: Nervous Shock Essay

Maybe your grid be missing the most recent sitting?

My City Colleges grid has question 1 in March 2018 as DoC, vicarious liability and trespass/RvF/nuisance (the land torts are grouped together on this grid). So both of you are working from up to date grids except yours isn't identifying everything. Be very wary of that.

lawless11

So I received the dreaded letter!

My question is, reading the rules - they say to drop legislation in "at least 1 day prior to the examination". No mention of on-the-day dropping. Is it still officiously possible or is that a change from past years?

Frances456

Fuguestate wrote: »

My City Colleges grid has question 1 in March 2018 as DoC, vicarious liability and trespass/RvF/nuisance (the land torts are grouped together on this grid). So both of you are working from up to date grids except yours isn't identifying everything. Be very wary of that.

I'm looking at a sample answer for Q1 March 2018 and it discusses parents/minders being liable in negligence for injury caused to or by children in their care... Nothing about Vicarious Liability or land torts..

iamanengine

Fuguestate wrote: »

My City Colleges grid has question 1 in March 2018 as DoC, vicarious liability and trespass/RvF/nuisance (the land torts are grouped together on this grid). So both of you are working from up to date grids except yours isn't identifying everything. Be very wary of that.

From what I can tell the bulk of the question was based on duty of care owed for actions of third parties but you could talk about public nuisance and VL for children also. But the only thing my manual says about VL for parent/child is briefly mentioning Moynihan v Moynihan.

So I would still say they are due coming up on their own Q. But really it's all guesswork so please don't rely on my word!

Fuguestate

Frances456 wrote: »

I'm looking at a sample answer for Q1 March 2018 and it discusses parents/minders being liable in negligence for injury caused to or by children in their care... Nothing about Vicarious Liability or land torts..

Have you read the question? The entire second paragraph is inviting discussion on nuisance.

Frances456

Fuguestate wrote: »

Have you read the question? The entire second paragraph is inviting discussion on nuisance.

Of course I've read the question - just putting it out there that this is what my grid and sample answer say ..

user115

On Succession in land law, what questions ye think might be asked? Last year focus was on s.117 orders with promissory estoppel added in and then another question on requirements for valid will and admissibility of extrinsic evidence.

I'm getting a bit worried now that land paper might be kinda awful since the March one was grand and asked questions on all the main topics. What ye think? Hope study is going well for everyone

Supermax1988

Fuguestate wrote: »

Have you read the question? The entire second paragraph is inviting discussion on nuisance.

The last line of that question is "Advise Mary as to whether she has any liability to Harry in respect to Matthew's actions."

This suggests that the examiner is only looking for discussion on DOC for 3rd parties as any nuisance claim would be coming from the unnamed neighbour which we're not asked to advise Mary about.

Townton

What are people covering for constitutional? Just wondering for comparison reasons.

Supermax1988

lawless11 wrote: »

So I received the dreaded letter!

My question is, reading the rules - they say to drop legislation in "at least 1 day prior to the examination". No mention of on-the-day dropping. Is it still officiously possible or is that a change from past years?

The official position has always been you have to drop it in at least a day before. The unwritten rule is that if you drop it in the morning of you'll get it an hour into the exam.

My advice is if you can at all, drop it in a day before. But don't go out of your way to do it. Unless you're heading to the Red Cow anyways for another exam, don't bother making the trip just to leave in the legislation. Especially if you could be using that time to study.

Fe1hun18

Independent colleges constitutional predictions :

1) case note
2) SOP
3) findings of unconstitutionality
4) equality
5) family and children
6) article 38.1 and pre trial publicity
7) property rights

These are all fairly predictable anyway so might not be of that much help

R146

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

Wow. You've more than enough covered.
Maybe weed it out a bit.
Don't split your time over 15 areas equally.

I'd know 8 or so really well and have a working knowledge of another 4.

Best to know 8 areas well than 15 areas mediocre. That's my philosophy. I back it up with some prayer my guess-timates pay off too

Cheers for this, but what do yous all mean by ‘working knowledge’?

L124

Never got my letter. Lookin at what ye all covered I’m not ready. And won’t be .
Anyone been in similar situation? could I defer or just get a refund since it’s two weeks before exams?

R146

L124 wrote: »

Never got my letter. Lookin at what ye all covered I’m not ready. And won’t be .
Anyone been in similar situation? could I defer or just get a refund since it’s two weeks before exams?

As far as I can tell you don’t get your money back unless you have a sick cert. I could be wrong though.

user115

L124 wrote: »

Never got my letter. Lookin at what ye all covered I’m not ready. And won’t be .
Anyone been in similar situation? could I defer or just get a refund since it’s two weeks before exams?

L124 I would sit them even if you don't think your that prepared. Even if you don't get them the experience of having done them knowing yourself how they went and how you should go about them next time is worth the money. I did them in 2015 passed criminal, didn't get other 2 was working up until day before and had just started a new job but it was well worth the experience if you haven't done them already. They are completely different to college exams and they are 100% passable, you will be surprised how much you know in there. These exams are a combination of prep and luck, luck plays a big part in it. I would do them if I were you. I wouldn't get put off by what people are doing on here, you have no idea what they are like, everyone goes about exams differently. So what if you fail, it's just an exam and you'll learn from it and sure you might pass so it's a chance worth taking considering time you save if you pass.

Fuguestate

Supermax1988 wrote: »

The last line of that question is "Advise Mary as to whether she has any liability to Harry in respect to Matthew's actions."

This suggests that the examiner is only looking for discussion on DOC for 3rd parties as any nuisance claim would be coming from the unnamed neighbour which we're not asked to advise Mary about.

I appreciate that, but every paragraph is there for a reason. If we follow your logic and only address Mary's liability to Harry, then we are ignoring paragraph 2 entirely, as well as references to the boys making noise and Mary's shouting in paragraph 1.

Our lecturer told us that many questions, across all FE1s, will contain 'honours points' opportunities. This seems to be one such case. Personally, I'm with you. I'll be just answering the question that's asked in order to get over the line. But I'm also going to try be alive to little opportunities like the above, because it could mean an extra mark that makes all the difference.

Supermax1988

Fuguestate wrote: »

I appreciate that, but every paragraph is there for a reason. If we follow your logic and only address Mary's liability to Harry, then we are ignoring paragraph 2 entirely, as well as references to the boys making noise and Mary's shouting in paragraph 1.

Well, not really. You don't have to ignore paragraph 1 and 2. You just read them as incidents of Mary assuming responsibility for their behaviour/attempting to change their behaviour. By attempting to limit their volume (paragraph 1) and changing the way they play their game (paragraph 2/3).

Have a read of the examiners report for that question too. He specifically references liability for the actions of others and control of others in their responsibility. Nothing about Nuisance.

100% agree with what you're saying about being alive to all of the potential issues. But at the same time you only have 30-32 minutes per question in the exam and you can lose time and marks by discussing topics that aren't relevant to the question. I did a Tort prep course in a previous sitting and the best advice I got was to always pay close attention to the final line of every problem question. 9/10 that's where the examiner will drop the biggest hint as to the topic(s) he wants you to explore.

sallieships

Heart Shaped Box wrote: »

Anyone still selling the companies Act?

I have one for sale! Only the most important provisions are very lightly marked, and comes with the good luck it brought me! Could meet or drop to you in Dublin.

mariealice

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

Wow. You've more than enough covered.
Maybe weed it out a bit.
Don't split your time over 15 areas equally.

I'd know 8 or so really well and have a working knowledge of another 4.

Best to know 8 areas well than 15 areas mediocre. That's my philosophy. I back it up with some prayer my guess-timates pay off too

Thanks, I know it should be loads but I had a bit of a panic yesterday. I know 8/9 of those topics very well and the others medium well so I guess i'll just have to hope its enough. Failed tort by 3% the last time so its making me quite anxious

legaleagle2010

what are everyone's predictions for equity?
any help would be appreciated!

bigtophat13

Fe1hun18 wrote: »

Independent colleges constitutional predictions :

1) case note
2) SOP
3) findings of unconstitutionality
4) equality
5) family and children
6) article 38.1 and pre trial publicity
7) property rights

These are all fairly predictable anyway so might not be of that much help

On the off chance do you have their predictions for equity? Such a big subject and I'm struggling to whittle it down