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

LegallyBlonde2

Nope, they drop it on your desk the morning of your exam! so if your drop it in the day before your exam its on your desk on the morning of the exam or if you drop it in on the morning of your exam you get it dropped to you desk an hour after the exam begins!

byrne7

Heart Shaped Box wrote: »

First time sitting FE1s - if you are sitting subjects on both the first and second week which allow you to bring in legislation, does it make sense to come in on the first day and drop off ALL legislation to be checked?

If you do that, is it the case that when you arrive to your first exam (i.e. the day after you dropped it all off) you'll be handed back your legislation for all subjects in one go, despite only needing it for 1?
If so, doesn't that mean you could technically go changing your highlights/tabs etc for the exam you have a week later?


Sorry if this makes no sense/is stupid - caffeine has frazzled my brain

No, once you drop off your legislation, you don’t get it back until the actual exam. They leave it on your desk with your student number so once you hand it in, you have to be sure you won’t need it until the exam.

TCPIP

When they say that your Constitution must be unmarked, how unmarked do they mean? Can I highlight?

sapphire309

TCPIP wrote: »

When they say that your Constitution must be unmarked, how unmarked do they mean? Can I highlight?

Highlight, underline and tab. No writing on the page other than simply underlining the text.

GingerAleSnail

Leraf wrote: »

6 weeks after the last Friday of the Exams. I would put that at the 30th November, no?

23rd is my guess,

Townton

Need advice on this list for constitutional. I have covered the following thinking of adding one or two more but wont if I dont have to as there are toher subject I need to cover.

Covered the following

SOP
Equality
Freedom of speech
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of religion
Freedom of association
Equality
Judicial review
Finding of unconstitutionality
Legislative interpretation
AG
Oireachtas
Unenumerated Rights
Soverenty and Prerogatives
Private Property.

bigtophat13

Company people, if he were to bring up contract related aspects, it's far more likely to be in relation to ostensible authority rather than ultra vires right? Or if it were to be ultra vires it would most likely be only part of a question no? Would he ask us to chart the development would you think?

Teamhrach

Townton wrote: »

Need advice on this list for constitutional. I have covered the following thinking of adding one or two more but wont if I dont have to as there are toher subject I need to cover.

Covered the following

SOP
Equality
Freedom of speech
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of religion
Freedom of association
Equality
Judicial review
Finding of unconstitutionality
Legislative interpretation
AG
Oireachtas
Unenumerated Rights
Soverenty and Prerogatives
Private Property.

I wouldn't spend a lot of time on these but have a quick read through them in case, even a nutshells book:
- The Art 26 procedure for the president, and think of pros/cons as you go.
- Referenda. Although they both appeared in March, it's a big year!
- If you did family law at undergrad, just read over those notes to refresh yourself on the off-chance of it appearing again this sitting.
And proportionality

Insta92

For Company Law I am covering the following:

Corporate Legal personality
Directors Duties
Restriction/Disqualification
Corporate borrowings
Retention of Title Clauses
Winding up
Disposition of Shares
Share transfer

Does anyone think it’s important to cover the reforms under the 2014 Act? Debating whether to learn an essay off.

Teamhrach

Equity - the Quia Timet PQ

Would anyone have a sample answer for Oct 2014 Q3 or Oct 2012 Q6? Or could anyone share their thoughts on what the outcome might be?

Oct 14 Q3 concerned a boat trip business that might be affected by a fish farm. Internet research and a postgrad thesis found that it could cause dolphins to move elsewhere which would cause a loss of tourism and the dolphins were a joy for locals.

- I think damages wouldn’t be adequate so prima facie entitled to a QT
- I’m wondering if there’s any case that goes through the types of evidence that would/wouldn’t be acceptable to the court?

Oct 12 Q6
Holiday homes due to open, brochures promoted a peaceful place to stay but a quarry is due to open for a few years.

- I'm wondering if there's any cases on this particular point
- I think damages could actually be adequate in this case because the holiday homes haven't had guests stay yet but under the British Celanese case, maybe not?

March 2010 Q2 QT question
- The sample answer I had doesn't include the case that's mentioned in the exam report so use it to prepare instead (JRM Sports Ltd v FAI [2007])

user115

Hey all quick question how can a contract be deemed unenforceable but still be a valid defense? This is in context of formal and evidentiary requirements. Any insight would be much appreciated

bigtophat13

Insta92 wrote: »

For Company Law I am covering the following:

Corporate Legal personality
Directors Duties
Restriction/Disqualification
Corporate borrowings
Retention of Title Clauses
Winding up
Disposition of Shares
Share transfer

Does anyone think it’s important to cover the reforms under the 2014 Act? Debating whether to learn an essay off.

I currently have less than that but I wouldn't be completely comfortable with what you have as shares came up last year and so did restriction and disqualification, In the last 5 sittings I haven't seen retention of title clauses so it wouldn't be any harm to have the essay on 5 even barebones.

law8

Does anyone have any guesses as to what case notes could come up for Constitutional? really panicking here.

Bashbag89

Hey folks would anybody have some duty of care or gen negligence sample answers that they would be willing to share? Really struggling gettting me head around the past papers.

Fe1hayes

I've mainly done Ag, interpretation,state and all that, Courts,due course equality, property, personal rights, judicial review, separation of powers ,freedom of religion and speech,amending the const, unconstitutionality and family. But I find reading things the information in my manual isn't all there I'm constantly picking up things I don't have it's just making me doubt myself. But from listening to the videos in independent she says you can approach a question as you see fit and argue it. But I think that's bull he seems to know exactly what he's looking for.

Joanneom wrote: »

Im feeling the exact same way about it. From going through the reports I think the most important thing to do is read the questions extremely carefully and consider them. The essay questions are a good one to go for in Const as they are open to opinion and can give you a little wiggle room there, granted you have the law/ratio to back them up. I found in my undergrad the most important thing with Const was to not fear giving a reasoned opinion as it shows that you've considered the law in that area.

I'm just so stuck with the vastness of the whole subject. Feeling very underprepared even though I've studied more than half the course. What have you studied?

Pyggg

Would anyone happen to have any good notes for Defamation in Tort? Struggling to fit everything in and freaking out now, this is my first set and seriously overwhelmed genuinely think I will fail all 4. I would be so grateful and hopefully could give you something in return.

Tony_TwoLegs

Pyggg wrote: »

Would anyone happen to have any good notes for Defamation in Tort? Struggling to fit everything in and freaking out now, this is my first set and seriously overwhelmed genuinely think I will fail all 4. I would be so grateful and hopefully could give you something in return.

Defamation PQ came up on the last paper. My guess would be to give it a skip. Don't quote me on that .....

Pyggg

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

Defamation PQ came up on the last paper. My guess would be to give it a skip. Don't quote me on that .....

Seems to come up in two’s based on the grid! Not 100% banking on it but based on the past pattern and the fact that it is a straight forward enough topic I’d be kicking myself if I didn’t know it and it came up!

HappySlappy123

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I currently have less than that but I wouldn't be completely comfortable with what you have as shares came up last year and so did restriction and disqualification, In the last 5 sittings I haven't seen retention of title clauses so it wouldn't be any harm to have the essay on 5 even barebones.

I'd have to agree, wouldn't be at all surprised if R&D and transfer didn't come up. I reckon Receivership, Authority, Liquidation, potentially with Reckless and Fraudulent Trading coming up.

With regards the reform Q, I'd imagine we'll see it in some form, if not the trusty '5 examples', then one of the variations on the October 17 paper (SAP Q and Q on differences between DACS and other Companies limited by shares).

I'd be thinking the same with regards to ROT very much being due a run.

Here's hoping I'm in some way right anyway!

yournerd

Anyone whose passed contract

What was/is your strategy?

iamanengine

Q4 of the October 2017 Criminal paper was entirely on the defence of diminished responsibility...my manual has 5 lines on it...

iamanengine

yournerd wrote: »

Anyone whose passed contract

What was/is your strategy?

I'm sitting it this time around but my strategy will be to know O+A, Consideration/Estoppel, Terms and Consumer Protection inside out, they pretty much always come up. Then hopefully one of either misrep or mistake comes up and that's the 5 sorted!

holliek

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

I'd have to agree, wouldn't be at all surprised if R&D and transfer didn't come up. I reckon Receivership, Authority, Liquidation, potentially with Reckless and Fraudulent Trading coming up.

With regards the reform Q, I'd imagine we'll see it in some form, if not the trusty '5 examples', then one of the variations on the October 17 paper (SAP Q and Q on differences between DACS and other Companies limited by shares).

I'd be thinking the same with regards to ROT very much being due a run.

Here's hoping I'm in some way right anyway!

I'm doing company and have left out fraudulent and reckless trading as it never really appears.. Is it tipped to come up this year?

sapphire309

iamanengine wrote: »

Q4 of the October 2017 Criminal paper was entirely on the defence of diminished responsibility...my manual has 5 lines on it...

Recent consideration of Diminished Responsibility in DPP v Heffernan [2017]

Bashbag89

Hey, could somebody clear up a question on Vicariously liability for me?

In relation to O'Keefe v Hickey was the "close connection" test initially rejected? I have one set of notes saying it was rejected and another set saying it was approved in that case!

HappySlappy123

holliek wrote: »

I'm doing company and have left out fraudulent and reckless trading as it never really appears.. Is it tipped to come up this year?

It's got to come up sometime

holliek

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

It's got to come up sometime

quite true! I'm looking at it now, what are the important areas?

Pyggg

Bashbag89 wrote: »

Hey, could somebody clear up a question on Vicariously liability for me?

In relation to O'Keefe v Hickey was the "close connection" test initially rejected? I have one set of notes saying it was rejected and another set saying it was approved in that case!

My notes say that Hardiman rejected the Canadian approach which was that all actions had to be authorised, but approved the close connection test in general.

Vegetarian2017

The nerves are well and truly kicking in but trying to remain calm then everytime i come on here there are new cases being mentioned on topics i think i know;(

Vegetarian2017

Property
Would many recommend reading the full law reform report on adverse possession or is like a paragraph or two enough to know on it