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

HappySlappy123

Somebody in the last day or two, referred to developments in the areas of Vicarious Liability and Occupiers' Liability in 2017 - would be extremely grateful if someone could provide a very brief summary of what these developments are? I have a 2017 manual but it doesn't appear to contain anything that recent in terms of case law

twitchandsweep

Anyone have any predictions for contract?

sapphire309

Perhaps a stupid question, but my grid for Equity includes Rectification, but nothing on Rescission. Does Rescission ever come up in Equity exam?

jus_me

Teamhrach wrote: »

Thanks for all the tips. This is all a bit mind-boggling (such is the stage of my studies) but I did European Human Rights during my llm, mostly ECHR-based though.
Someone sent me a guide from the Griffith course, it's very helpful if you want it PM me with your email address!

What Eu topics are u saying echr is good for? I did it in undergrad and what to use it if I can

Gunslinger92

lawless11 wrote: »

I think the papers are done in the beginning of each year, so too recent .

Crap :pac: I know it well just from interest, hopefully I can throw it into some question!

bigtophat13

jus_me wrote: »

What Eu topics are u saying echr is good for? I did it in undergrad and what to use it if I can

General / Fundamental principles of EU law, usually question 2 if it comes up.

Townton

Can I ask what do some find the best method for learning off? I have the note everything done doing past papers but looking for the most efficient way to just make the stuff stick in the head.

jus_me

bigtophat13 wrote: »

General / Fundamental principles of EU law, usually question 2 if it comes up.

Oh great and how would you recommend putting echr in?

jus_me

twitchandsweep wrote: »

Anyone have any predictions for contract?

Offer & acceptance
Consideration and estoppel
Misrepresentation
Mistake
Remedies
Minors and contracts (capacity to contract)
Exclusion clauses

they’re all my guesses anyone please feel free to add to that !

iamanengine

jus_me wrote: »

Offer & acceptance
Consideration and estoppel
Misrepresentation
Mistake
Remedies
Minors and contracts (capacity to contract)
Exclusion clauses

they’re all my guesses anyone please feel free to add to that !

I would add Terms and Consumer Protection to that. Consumer Protection has come up every sitting for the last 14. Discharge comes up loads as well but was on the last 4 so maybe not. I would say capacity maybe less likely. Illegal contracts might be due a run too...

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

Somebody in the last day or two, referred to developments in the areas of Vicarious Liability and Occupiers' Liability in 2017 - would be extremely grateful if someone could provide a very brief summary of what these developments are? I have a 2017 manual but it doesn't appear to contain anything that recent in terms of case law

Vicarious liability - Hickey v McGowan & Another, was in the HC, case went to SC in 2017 who upheld the decision, previously in O' Keefe SC rejected liability for employers in sexual abuse cases but here they accepted the close connection test and opened liability for sexual abuse, fundamental departure from the previously understood position. Also English HC in Various Claimants v Barclays Bank PLC extended VL to independent contractors.

Occupiers Liability - A bunch of cases my manual didn't have, Fitzgerald v South Dublin CC 2015, Chambers v Powerscourt Estates Limited 2017, Wall v National Parks and Wildlife Service 2017, Louis Byrne v Ardenheath Company and Ardenheath Management Company 2017, O' Connor v Wexford CC 2018 - These all generally show a move towards a less onerous duty on occupiers and that they are entitled to presume visitors will take reasonable care.

bigtophat13

jus_me wrote: »

Oh great and how would you recommend putting echr in?

I'd go for a long discussion on the development of human rights and how they weren't too fond of them due to the supremacy of EU law in the 60s then the change in the 70s and 80s and then how the ECHR was kind of in but not fully in and then how it was ratified in Lisbon (I think?) while also mentioning the charter of fundamental rights also. Lots of rights now with the both of them.

HappySlappy123

iamanengine wrote: »

I would add Terms and Consumer Protection to that. Consumer Protection has come up every sitting for the last 14. Discharge comes up loads as well but was on the last 4 so maybe not. I would say capacity maybe less likely. Illegal contracts might be due a run too...



Vicarious liability - Hickey v McGowan & Another, was in the HC, case went to SC in 2017 who upheld the decision, previously in O' Keefe SC rejected liability for employers in sexual abuse cases but here they accepted the close connection test and opened liability for sexual abuse, fundamental departure from the previously understood position. Also English HC in Various Claimants v Barclays Bank PLC extended VL to independent contractors.

Occupiers Liability - A bunch of cases my manual didn't have, Fitzgerald v South Dublin CC 2015, Chambers v Powerscourt Estates Limited 2017, Wall v National Parks and Wildlife Service 2017, Louis Byrne v Ardenheath Company and Ardenheath Management Company 2017, O' Connor v Wexford CC 2018 - These all generally show a move towards a less onerous duty on occupiers and that they are entitled to presume visitors will take reasonable care.

A massive help, really appreciate it!

Townton

What are cities predictions for Tort?

leavingcert17

sitting tort, contract and equity
what I am covering - I don't have much more time and don't have much learned off spending way to long on notes!
economic loss
nuisance
professional neg
vicarious liability
occupiers liability
trespass to person
general neg Q on duty of care
liability to animals

covering basically everything for contract apart from agency, capacity

Equity

Quia Timet Injunction - im lost for this what do I cover?
Specific Performance
Rectification
Trustees
Cy-Pres

Presumed Resulting Trusts + Presumption of Advancement
Three Certainties
Constructive Trusts (knowing assistance)
Maxims in Equity
Automatic Resulting Trusts (Surplus funds unincorporated association)

am I leaving out anything extremely predictable?

bigtophat13

leavingcert17 wrote: »

sitting tort, contract and equity
what I am covering - I don't have much more time and don't have much learned off spending way to long on notes!
economic loss
nuisance
professional neg
vicarious liability
occupiers liability
trespass to person
general neg Q on duty of care
liability to animals

covering basically everything for contract apart from agency, capacity

Equity

Quia Timet Injunction - im lost for this what do I cover?
Specific Performance
Rectification
Trustees
Cy-Pres

Presumed Resulting Trusts + Presumption of Advancement
Three Certainties
Constructive Trusts (knowing assistance)
Maxims in Equity
Automatic Resulting Trusts (Surplus funds unincorporated association)

am I leaving out anything extremely predictable?

Undue Influence for equity comes up often although it's been up near 5 times in a row so it's due to be rotated out soon. Tracing is also due up.

I'm probably going to be going in somewhat risky. In order of necessity I'm going with

-3 Certainties
-Charitable (Cy pres particularly)
-Undue Influence
-Trustee Duties
-Quia Timet
-Interlocutory Injunctions (mandatory particularly)
-Specific Performance
-Constructive Trusts
-Resulting trusts if I learn it on time, likely bank accounts and PoA
-Anton Piller I already know from undergrad but likely wont be up.
-Secret Trusts

Rectification I would like to have time for but I've only seen it in one long question once with A specific performance question, besides that only in the note so lower in my priority but that's just the way I'm looking at it. At the moment I only have notes I can grind learn for the first 6 of those so I have 5 days then after the first 2.

L124

Does anyone here have any idea what happens if you just don’t show up to an exam/the exams? (Without submitting a medical cert)
Do you get marked as a outright fail or as absent without leave?
If you submit a cert are you marked as excused absent?

Supermax1988

leavingcert17 wrote: »

Equity

Quia Timet Injunction - im lost for this what do I cover?

You might as well learn all interlocutory injunctions as QT are the same principles as interlocutory injunctions but with a higher evidential burden.

Supermax1988

L124 wrote: »

Does anyone here have any idea what happens if you just don’t show up to an exam/the exams? (Without submitting a medical cert)
Do you get marked as a outright fail or as absent without leave?
If you submit a cert are you marked as excused absent?

I think you just get marked absent regardless of whether you've a cert or not. A cert just might entitle you to a refund for that exam. I could be wrong but that's always been my understanding of it.

byrne7

Supermax1988 wrote: »

I think you just get marked absent regardless of whether you've a cert or not. A cert just might entitle you to a refund for that exam. I could be wrong but that's always been my understanding of it.

I didn’t sit one last time and I had a medical cert. got my money back minus an admin fee. It was marked as a zero for that one when I got my results which is a bit annoying. Rather it said absent or something.

lawlad101

Supermax1988 wrote: »

You might as well learn all interlocutory injunctions as QT are the same principles as interlocutory injunctions but with a higher evidential burden.

When you say higher evidential burden does that not lean a bit more towards the old interlocutory 'probability' test? Or is it just 'bona fide issue' with a little extra proof from P?

Supermax1988

lawlad101 wrote: »

When you say higher evidential burden does that not lean a bit more towards the old interlocutory 'probability' test? Or is it just 'bona fide issue' with a little extra proof from P?

I think it's similar to the mandatory injunction requirement but distinct in the sense that for mandatory you've to show you've a strong case you're likely to succeed because compelling someone to do something is more onerous than restraining them from doing something.

For QT meanwhile the higher burden is because it hasn't happened yet. You're just anticipating it. You've to show that it's highly likely that your rights will be infringed. As AG v Rathmines and Pembroke (1904) puts it, almost "a moral certainty" that it will happen.

mariealice

What are people leaving out for constitutional? Feel like I am trying to cram too much in but I don't know what else to leave up :S as it currently stands I am leaving out ; Personal Liberty, Article 45 ESC, Emergency and War, International Law and the Constitution, The President and the Oireachtas. Will also probably leave out Abortion as I think its unlikely as the law was in the process of change when they would have been drafting the paper? Does anyone have any opinions/insight , any help would be greatly appreciated!

Pyggg

mariealice wrote: »

What are people leaving out for constitutional? Feel like I am trying to cram too much in but I don't know what else to leave up :S as it currently stands I am leaving out ; Personal Liberty, Article 45 ESC, Emergency and War, International Law and the Constitution, The President and the Oireachtas. Will also probably leave out Abortion as I think its unlikely as the law was in the process of change when they would have been drafting the paper? Does anyone have any opinions/insight , any help would be greatly appreciated!

I'm leaving out all you are leaving out plus inviolability of the dwelling, right to silence, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, the preamble, and probably nation people state and sovereignty and right to jury trial. There is so much to it to be honest can't even see myself passing it, it is so overwhelming that I'm trying to cram everything in that I end up actually forgetting any real information

bigtophat13

lawlad101 wrote: »

When you say higher evidential burden does that not lean a bit more towards the old interlocutory 'probability' test? Or is it just 'bona fide issue' with a little extra proof from P?

Supermax1988 wrote: »

I think it's similar to the mandatory injunction requirement but distinct in the sense that for mandatory you've to show you've a strong case you're likely to succeed because compelling someone to do something is more onerous than restraining them from doing something.

For QT meanwhile the higher burden is because it hasn't happened yet. You're just anticipating it. You've to show that it's highly likely that your rights will be infringed. As AG v Rathmines and Pembroke (1904) puts it, almost "a moral certainty" that it will happen.

I was going through it the other day and the way they used to say in Rathmines v Pembroke was that you needed a strong chance and a moral certainty and that kinda lingo - same in Redland Bricks v Morris but in recent years they said it should theoretically be the same burden but in the case of actually proving the risk in court, it usually works out that it's much more difficult to prove because of the evidence issues and because of that you need to show a higher certainty.

Ngannou54

mariealice wrote: »

What are people leaving out for constitutional? Feel like I am trying to cram too much in but I don't know what else to leave up :S as it currently stands I am leaving out ; Personal Liberty, Article 45 ESC, Emergency and War, International Law and the Constitution, The President and the Oireachtas. Will also probably leave out Abortion as I think its unlikely as the law was in the process of change when they would have been drafting the paper? Does anyone have any opinions/insight , any help would be greatly appreciated!

I'm covering Right to equality, obstacles to a constitutional challenge, AG, President, Separation of Powers, Freedom of Expression, Association and Assembly, Property Rights, Unenumerated rights, Unconstitutionally obtained evidence, pre-trial publicity, the courts, family and education. Any help on recent caselaw that would come up would be appreciated. I only have exam papers up to 2016.

mariealice

Pyggg wrote: »

I'm leaving out all you are leaving out plus inviolability of the dwelling, right to silence, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, the preamble, and probably nation people state and sovereignty and right to jury trial. There is so much to it to be honest can't even see myself passing it, it is so overwhelming that I'm trying to cram everything in that I end up actually forgetting any real information

Oh ya I've leaving out the Preamble as well and I've only barely touched on right to a jury trial/right to silence as in I've learned the main principles and two or three cases just in case it comes up with due course of law in a problem question Theres so much and then theres the case notes question which seems to be impossible to prep for, feeling like constitutional is sucking up all my time!

Bashbag89

Can somebody please tell me what came up on Tort for the last sitting?

Robbo

lawlad101 wrote: »

When you say higher evidential burden does that not lean a bit more towards the old interlocutory 'probability' test? Or is it just 'bona fide issue' with a little extra proof from P?

Supermax1988 wrote: »

I think it's similar to the mandatory injunction requirement but distinct in the sense that for mandatory you've to show you've a strong case you're likely to succeed because compelling someone to do something is more onerous than restraining them from doing something.

For QT meanwhile the higher burden is because it hasn't happened yet. You're just anticipating it. You've to show that it's highly likely that your rights will be infringed. As AG v Rathmines and Pembroke (1904) puts it, almost "a moral certainty" that it will happen.

As a QT injunction is most likely going to be heard ex parte, the evidence that the anticipated harm is likely to occur needs to be strong.

There's some commentary in Szabo v. Esat Digifone regarding this. In that case there was expert evidence on both sides as to the risk involved so there was no clear indication that the anticipated harm would occur.

A common twist in problem questions of this nature is for the evidence to be particularly weak (e.g. the plaintiff is relying on a dubious source such as a non-expert magazine article or website).

iamanengine

Bashbag89 wrote: »

Can somebody please tell me what came up on Tort for the 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

Bashbag89

iamanengine wrote: »

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

Thanks a million! Was question 7 definitely Employers Liability? I remember somebody mentioning that it was vicarious liability that came up on the last paper!