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

iamanengine

Bashbag89 wrote: »

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!

I don't actually have the paper that's just what I was told came up. As far as I know the VL referred to was a small part of Q1.

Unrelated, found another recent case in Contract for Damages.
Sheehan v Brecia 2018 - Irish case, approved the test used in Dunlop for assessing if a clause is a penalty clause or liquidated damages clause.

twitchandsweep

Can someone tell me what came up for contract in the last sitting please?

Gunslinger92

Bashbag89 wrote: »

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!

Yes it was definitely employers liability, it was a problem about a bank employee and someone coming in and injuring her, the bank had removed protective glass windows and things like that

Bashbag89

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Yes it was definitely employers liability, it was a problem about a bank employee and someone coming in and injuring her, the bank had removed protective glass windows and things like that

Thanks very much. I won't be focusing too much on that so.

iamanengine

Could anyone enlighten me about this Easements question...

Mr. Chan has issued a new lease to Mr. Can of old cellars which lie below and
adjacent to property retained by him. The lease agreement specifically states that the cellars will be used for a new Turkish restaurant. However, upon inspection of these cellars, the local Health Authority has advised that the ventilation system which is in place is wholly inadequate and a new ventilation system will have to be installed. Mr. Can has acted accordingly and hired a company to install the new system which involves fixing new piping to the property that has been retained by the landlord. Mr. Chan immediately questions Mr. Can's right to do this and now seeks your advice.
Discuss with reference to relevant case law.

In the examiner's report for the question it says candidates only discussed Re Ellenborough Park and Wong v Beaumont Property ad that cases and legislation concerning Adverse Possession should be discussed here as well?

user115

iamanengine wrote: »

Could anyone enlighten me about this Easements question...

Mr. Chan has issued a new lease to Mr. Can of old cellars which lie below and
adjacent to property retained by him. The lease agreement specifically states that the cellars will be used for a new Turkish restaurant. However, upon inspection of these cellars, the local Health Authority has advised that the ventilation system which is in place is wholly inadequate and a new ventilation system will have to be installed. Mr. Can has acted accordingly and hired a company to install the new system which involves fixing new piping to the property that has been retained by the landlord. Mr. Chan immediately questions Mr. Can's right to do this and now seeks your advice.
Discuss with reference to relevant case law.

In the examiner's report for the question it says candidates only discussed Re Ellenborough Park and Wong v Beaumont Property ad that cases and legislation concerning Adverse Possession should be discussed here as well?

What year examiners report is that? That sounds really strange its def only Easements its same facts as Wong. How is it AP when there is a lease?? He clearly has permission so AP def doesn't some into it. Interested to see which report this is

iamanengine

user115 wrote: »

What year examiners report is that? That sounds really strange its def only Easements its same facts as Wong. How is it AP when there is a lease?? He clearly has permission so AP def doesn't some into it. Interested to see which report this is

October 2017, Q8. That's cool that's what I thought, must be a typo! But then I'm not sure what other cases he is talking about, my manual only mentions Wong for easements of necessity.

user115

iamanengine wrote: »

October 2017, Q8. That's cool that's what I thought, must be a typo! But then I'm not sure what other cases he is talking about, my manual only mentions Wong for easements of necessity.

Def a typo id say, I didn't spot that before. The examiner always seemed to stick to one topic per Q in property so don't think she would have added in something else. Think she meant legislative provisions in LCLRA 2009 and she wanted people to go into necessity, id say if a person had the 4 requirements from Re Ellenbouragh and bit on acquiring easement via necessity surely they would have got over 50% in that question. I was going through property papers last night and so sickened the examiner has changed exam was always nearly a safe enough bet.

lmsc

Apologies if this has already been asked, but does anyone know where I can buy official copies of legislation, like LCLRA?

Leraf

lmsc wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been asked, but does anyone know where I can buy official copies of legislation, like LCLRA?

Office of Public Works

https://www.opw.ie/en/

jus_me

Would I be mad to leave out land lord and tenant 'COMMERCIAL' in property?

I'd love to know any sure things for property it would really help!!!

jewels652

jus_me wrote: »

Would I be mad to leave out land lord and tenant 'COMMERCIAL' in property?

I'd love to know any sure things for property it would really help!!!

I am trying to figure out what to leave out as well I was told that it was enough just to go with 7 topics so I am definitely studying the following:
1: succession
2: adverse possession
3: easements
4: ownership
5:licences
6:coownership
7:landlord and tenant

I am leaving mortgages registration Of land and family
But I don’t know is it might be too risky

jus_me

jewels652 wrote: »

I am trying to figure out what to leave out as well I was told that it was enough just to go with 7 topics so I am definitely studying the following:
1: succession
2: adverse possession
3: easements
4: ownership
5:licences
6:coownership
7:landlord and tenant

I am leaving mortgages registration Of land and family
But I don’t know is it might be too risky

I'd glance at mortgages if I were you I heard the examiner loves it!!
I've done the same as yourself but did you look at commercial under land lord and tenant?

Fuguestate

I've been given a new exam number since my last sitting in October 2017. I want to use the same legislation as I used then however I'll have to cross out my old exam number and enter my new one. Do you think that will be a problem?

jewels652

jus_me wrote: »

I'd glance at mortgages if I were you I heard the examiner loves it!!
I've done the same as yourself but did you look at commercial under land lord and tenant?

I didn’t go over land lord and tenant yet I am using the notes from Griffith they don’t see to mention commercial lease. I am thinking of perhaps don’t cover land lord and cover mortgages instead. Will that be a good idea?

Leraf

Fuguestate wrote: »

I've been given a new exam number since my last sitting in October 2017. I want to use the same legislation as I used then however I'll have to cross out my old exam number and enter my new one. Do you think that will be a problem?

it will be fine, everyone gets a new number, everyone has to change it. some people borrow books rather than have their own, they also have to change it

jus_me

jewels652 wrote: »

I didn’t go over land lord and tenant yet I am using the notes from Griffith they don’t see to mention commercial lease. I am thinking of perhaps don’t cover land lord and cover mortgages instead. Will that be a good idea?

I just have such a feeling mortgages will pop up in some form for property!!

TCPIP

By any chance does anyone have the 2015 Autumn company paper and report? I'd be very appreciative!

lawless11

Could anyone enlighten me on this one - prior 2014, only some ROT clauses needed to be registered. After 2014, do they all need to be registered in order to be enforceable? My notes are weird.

jewels652

Is there anybody willing to explain easements and profits in a nutshell for me please???? is just one of those topics that I can’t just get around it.

TIA

TCPIP

lawless11 wrote: »

Could anyone enlighten me on this one - prior 2014, only some ROT clauses needed to be registered. After 2014, do they all need to be registered in order to be enforceable? My notes are weird.

Yes. Charges over goods must be registered pursuant to s.409 of the Act.

Twinings2016

Does anyone have Spring 2018 property paper and examiners report?? Would be very grateful!

Fuguestate

Leraf wrote: »

it will be fine, everyone gets a new number, everyone has to change it. some people borrow books rather than have their own, they also have to change it

Cheers for that.

iamanengine

jewels652 wrote: »

Is there anybody willing to explain easements and profits in a nutshell for me please???? is just one of those topics that I can’t just get around it.

TIA

I'll take a swing at this.

Occurs where there are 2 pieces of adjoining land owned by 2 different owners. So say A's piece of land is on a road but B's piece isn't, B can get an easement for a right of way so he can pass through A's land and access the road. The land that gets the benefit is the dominant tenement and the land that provides the easement is the servient tenement. And they can arise in a number of ways. To succeed in a claim you need to show 12 years of continuous user without force, secrecy or permission from the servient land owner.

By profits do you mean profit a prendre? Essentially an easement but it is a right to take something from the land e.g. Turbary is a right to dig and take away turf

holliek

Is share transfer worth learning for company?

LegallyBlonde2

Could someone please explain the effect that Williams v Raffey Bros (1991) and MWB Business Exchange Centres v Rock Advertising Ltd (2018) have on the rule in Pinnels Case (1602)

jus_me

jewels652 wrote: »

Is there anybody willing to explain easements and profits in a nutshell for me please???? is just one of those topics that I can’t just get around it.

TIA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtuepIM8UM4

I found this youtube cartoon freakishly helpful. Keep in mind it's american but great for grasping what they are

sapphire309

jewels652 wrote: »

I am trying to figure out what to leave out as well I was told that it was enough just to go with 7 topics so I am definitely studying the following:
1: succession
2: adverse possession
3: easements
4: ownership
5:licences
6:coownership
7:landlord and tenant

I am leaving mortgages registration Of land and family
But I don’t know is it might be too risky

I'm doing all the same, but leaving out all of landlord-tenant and doing mortgages instead!

sapphire309

For Equity, does this sound like I'm cutting it too fine?

Charitable trusts incl. Cy Pres
Trusteeship
Specific Performance
3 Certainties
Tracing
Undue Influence
Satisfaction
Rectification & Rescission
Injunctions

bigtophat13

sapphire309 wrote: »

For Equity, does this sound like I'm cutting it too fine?

Charitable trusts incl. Cy Pres
Trusteeship
Specific Performance
3 Certainties
Tracing
Undue Influence
Satisfaction
Rectification & Rescission
Injunctions

I think you're safe, I'm going in with something very similar and without rectification even unless I get it done. Not doing satisfaction, only thing you're missing quite likely is constructive trusts.

Honestly I think all the following will be up - Cy Pres, Tracing, Specific Performance, Injunctions (QT or Mand Inter), 3 Certainties and Constructive Trusts. Leaves room for one of trustee duties or undue influence and then the note, but that's probably my terrified hopeful logic.