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

bigtophat13

sapphire309 wrote: »

So confused re: injunctions at the moment. Do we need to know general info e.g. elaboration on Campus Oil test and instances in which it isn't to be applied, and info re: damages as adequate remedy and laches/acquiescence etc? Sorry, having a panic at the moment

Don't worry about it, everyone is in perpetual panic now. It'll be the basis of Quia Timet as said here because they say in QT since Szabo that it's no different to an ordinary Interlocutory injunction but they admit that the evidence will be hard to establish in such a case so in reality it's a little more difficult.

Then for Anton Piller they are similar in that there will have to be an undertaking for damages, the actual level of the applicants case needs to be much higher however and it's different in that sense.

Mareva I haven't done and may not do but because it's attaching to their money once again its going to be a higher level I imagine but I'm no expert on it (or anything for that matter )

Teamhrach

mariealice wrote: »

Oh ok , I hadn't heard that, that was just my view on the matter , maybe they will switch up the pattern and ask it twice in a row but I'm screwed if they do because I don't have enough time to cover it

You have loads of time - even if you just look at your undergrad notes or find a sample answer. It doesn't need to be one of your main topics, it can be your back up

I only looked at 2 topics on the morning of one of my exams and was able to answer them relatively well. Had I studied it for ages weeks before I wouldn't have managed it any better

bigtophat13

Teamhrach wrote: »

You have loads of time - even if you just look at your undergrad notes or find a sample answer. It doesn't need to be one of your main topics, it can be your back up

I only looked at 2 topics on the morning of one of my exams and was able to answer them relatively well. Had I studied it for ages weeks before I wouldn't have managed it any better

How do undergrad answers fair in comparison to these? I know with undergrad I was throwing in cases for days but with these are you more inclined to get away with less cases if you put some in that are relevant to the topic and consider the facts in a way that shows you understand it ? Silly question I know but I just can't imagine being able to glance at something the morning of and write a decent level undergrad answer

mariealice

Teamhrach wrote: »

You have loads of time - even if you just look at your undergrad notes or find a sample answer. It doesn't need to be one of your main topics, it can be your back up

I only looked at 2 topics on the morning of one of my exams and was able to answer them relatively well. Had I studied it for ages weeks before I wouldn't have managed it any better

Thanks but I'm sitting 5 exams so dont have a huge amount of time left :L I have notes somewhere so I'll dig them out and try squeeze them into my study plan

twitchandsweep

Hi guys hope everyone’s getting on okay with their study, not long now!

Just wondering if anyone has the March 2018 sitting of either contract, criminal or property? The EPS I have are only to 2017 - it won’t let me buy them on the lawsocietys website. Anyone know the topics that came up? Starting to panic a little!

Thanks a mill

Tony_TwoLegs

mariealice wrote: »

Oh ok , I hadn't heard that, that was just my view on the matter , maybe they will switch up the pattern and ask it twice in a row but I'm screwed if they do because I don't have enough time to cover it

As a self professed expert on Equity FE1 from having to resit it 3 times I would say Mareva won't come up. I passed it in March. Notably my 5 other FE1s to date I passed without a bother. Either I'm bad at Equity or the examiner is hyper-critical.
There are patterns to Equity I witnessed. Ppl who did grind schools shared helpful predictions too....
You need patterned predictions as we can't learn EVERYTHING in such minute detail. No profession requires that in a closed book exam.

bigtophat13

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

As a self professed expert on Equity FE1 from having to resit it 3 times I would say Mareva won't come up. I passed it in March. Notably my 5 other FE1s to date I passed without a bother. Either I'm bad at Equity or the examiner is hyper-critical.
There are patterns to Equity I witnessed. Ppl who did grind schools shared helpful predictions too....
You need patterned predictions as we can't learn EVERYTHING in such minute detail. No profession requires that in a closed book exam.

That's rough. Do you mind me asking what you did different the time you passed versus the times you didn't? Couldn't agree more with that point, there's so much in equity you just can't know it all.

bigtophat13

Can a Quia Timet be both mandatory and prohibitory? It's proactive as opposed to reactive obviously but it can be both right?

Supermax1988

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Can a Quia Timet be both mandatory and prohibitory? It's proactive as opposed to reactive obviously but it can be both right?

Yeah it can be both. Last time QT came up (October 17 I think?) it was a mandatory interlocutory injunction. The guy was looking to make the other party hand over some paintings on foot of an agreement.

The last time QT came up before that (one of the 2016 papers) it was a prohibitory interlocutory injunction. The woman you were advising was trying to stop a TV show from filming next door to her spa resort.

HappySlappy123

mariealice wrote: »

Looks pretty solid , if you have time maybe throw in reckless and fraudulent trading I think its due a run but I reckon you should be pretty well covered! (I hope , I've covered more or less the same as you but I've done fraudulent and reckless trading and reform and left out liquidation)

If you don't mind me asking, why have you liquidation left out, as opposed to receivership? Is receivership due a run rather than liquidation?

mariealice

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking, why have you liquidation left out, as opposed to receivership? Is receivership due a run rather than liquidation?

Its just down to the fact that I hate the topic and timewise I just made a call to leave it out even though it is due a run from what I can see, I'm just hoping I've covered enough other topics that if it comes up I won't have to do it! Also receivership is due a run I think but I don't know if its any more likely to come up then liquidation

LawBoy2018

Does anyone have a public authorities negligence/duty of care sample answer they could send on to me? Q.2 March 2017 would be ideal! I have loads of stuff that I can swap.

Teamhrach

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Yeah it can be both. Last time QT came up (October 17 I think?) it was a mandatory interlocutory injunction. The guy was looking to make the other party hand over some paintings on foot of an agreement.

The last time QT came up before that (one of the 2016 papers) it was a prohibitory interlocutory injunction. The woman you were advising was trying to stop a TV show from filming next door to her spa resort.

Thank God someone asked this! I only prepared a prohibitory QT!

bigtophat13

Teamhrach wrote: »

Thank God someone asked this! I only prepared a prohibitory QT!

I'm glad I'm not the only one getting a little bogged down on all the injunctions. In the report though she suggested that the Autumn 2017 one wasn't QT, she just called it a "mandatory interlocutory injunction" and didn't call it QT, that's actually kind of why I'm preparing QT as I think it's really due a run?

bigtophat13

mariealice wrote: »

Its just down to the fact that I hate the topic and timewise I just made a call to leave it out even though it is due a run from what I can see, I'm just hoping I've covered enough other topics that if it comes up I won't have to do it! Also receivership is due a run I think but I don't know if its any more likely to come up then liquidation

If it's anything to either of you I think they're both likely so there's that. I think liquidation is very likely and receivers/examiners are awhile since also I think.

sapphire309

Does anyone have a sample answer for QT injunction?

iamanengine

yournerd wrote: »

Any recent case law in contract that should be mentioned?

Just noticed some recent cases in relation to Rules of Construction for Terms.

Wood v Capita Insurance Services LTD 2017 - UK SC case. More professionally drafted a contract is the more appropriate it is to use the plain meaning rule.

The Law Society of Ireland v MIBI 2017 - SC. Confirmed principles of interpretation laid down in Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Scheme.

Also, O' Donnell J, majority:

“It is necessary to understand the entirety of an agreement and then to consider what that means for the specific issue now raised. It is necessary therefore to see the agreement and the background context, as the parties saw them at the time the agreement was made, rather than to approach it through the lens of the dispute which has arisen sometimes much later."

Found for D using Factual Matrix Rule.

However, the minority agreed with the point made in Wood. Basically that while context matters it shouldn't be over done especially where the contract was carefully and professionally drafted.

bigtophat13

Am I right in saying that if questions so specific as the position of constructive trust fiduciaries, third parties or the new model you can't get a whole lot more than 20ish cases in? To learn more for such specific areas would surely be overdoing it?

lawlad101

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Am I right in saying that if questions so specific as the position of constructive trust fiduciaries, third parties or the new model you can't get a whole lot more than 20ish cases in? To learn more for such specific areas would surely be overdoing it?

20 is a lot.

bigtophat13

lawlad101 wrote: »

20 is a lot.

Not gonna lie I was stretching it at 20, glad to know that's lots

lawless11

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Am I right in saying that if questions so specific as the position of constructive trust fiduciaries, third parties or the new model you can't get a whole lot more than 20ish cases in? To learn more for such specific areas would surely be overdoing it?

The new model I have like 7 cases max. Lol. You're scaring me a little bit.

bigtophat13

Equity peoples, looking at a mandatory interlocutory injunction question, would you apply the standard interlocutory Campus Oil test and then go on to say how it would be different and harder to get for the case of a mandatory injunction or just go at it from a totally mandatory injunction stance?

HappySlappy123

bigtophat13 wrote: »

If it's anything to either of you I think they're both likely so there's that. I think liquidation is very likely and receivers/examiners are awhile since also I think.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were right! The likes of share transfer, restriction and disqualification and in particular, shareholder protection have been flogged to death so seeing some or all of those being replaced wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility

Teamhrach

lawless11 wrote: »

The new model I have like 7 cases max. Lol. You're scaring me a little bit.

I wrote out all the cases per topic today and it scared the life out of me. Don't know how to take out learning for equity :eek:

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

The new model I have like 7 cases max. Lol. You're scaring me a little bit.

See I had that and had to find a few more that in truth are not that useful because with 7 I thought I'd only be able to write a page to two no? But don't be silly and let me scare you, I'm just finding it hard to get out of the undergrad style of quality over quantity, everyone has their own way!

bigtophat13

Teamhrach wrote: »

I wrote out all the cases per topic today and it scared the life out of me. Don't know how to take out learning for equity :eek:

I haven't done anything like that yet but hate to ask and have to ask, how many was it looking like? has to be closer to 200 than 100?

Supermax1988

Teamhrach wrote: »

Thank God someone asked this! I only prepared a prohibitory QT!

bigtophat13 wrote: »

In the report though she suggested that the Autumn 2017 one wasn't QT, she just called it a "mandatory interlocutory injunction" and didn't call it QT, that's actually kind of why I'm preparing QT as I think it's really due a run?

Ah lads I think I made a balls of this. Just looked at my grid and it was just Mandatory Interlocutory in Oct 17 not QT.

So yeah if ever QT was due a run it's now.

Teamhrach

FE1 Lady wrote: »

To anybody who has passed Constitutional? Any tips on structure etc? I am petrified everytime I look at past questions!

The fake legislation is a bit daunting at first but look at the past exam papers to see what issues he wanted to be teased out and then engage with material on that. As you're reading write notes on a black A4 and use arrows and colours (if you think it will help). It's not too bad at all. Someone said const'l is just about your opinion and that can never be wrong - so you'll have the legislation, YOUR opinion, maybe some academic commentary added in and cases. The Supreme Court book is a great help. I'd actually recommend it before doing anything else for constitutional. Constitutional Project at UCC blog is good. Read around the important recent cases - blogs, newspapers, maybe twitter. Just make sure you understand the main principes of const'l law, have a few cases for each and have your own opinion.
Sorry if none of that makes sense but hopefully it will when you've done some more work / nearer the exam

Teamhrach

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I haven't done anything like that yet but hate to ask and have to ask, how many was it looking like? has to be closer to 200 than 100?

14 flashcards with at least 10! To be fair, there's a lot of them I don't have a clue what they're about but they're backing up one sentence/important point.

I haven't studied like this before so I won't be recommending it until I pass, at some stage :rolleyes:

bigtophat13

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Ah lads I think I made a balls of this. Just looked at my grid and it was just Mandatory Interlocutory in Oct 17 not QT.

So yeah if ever QT was due a run it's now.

Hey, at least now we know, if you were answering that style QT problem what way would you be going at it?