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

Fuguestate

Re negligent misstatement.

Is the Caparo v Dickman review/restatement of the Hedley Byrne principle good law in Ireland, or is it only of persuasive authority. My manual positions it so it looks like the next key case on the subject but, unusually, it doesn't say it's been adopted by the Irish courts.

Many thanks.

iamanengine

flyingdog wrote: »

Tort Question - For Vicarious Liability the City College Night before notes seem to imply the "Close Connection " test is still not used in sexual abuse cases. However,Hickey v McGowan 2017 says that the close connection test is now law.

Does anyone know whether or not the close connection test is now always used for sexual abuse cases in Ireland? thanks!

It was 1st accepted in O' Keefe though the claim was denied as there was sufficient connection between the employee and the State. It was affirmed by the SC in Hickey, emphasis was placed on if the power the employer has given to the employee materially increased the risk of wrongdoing. So it's more likely to be applied in regards to teachers or priests where there is a lot of trust, close contact etc.

Contrasts with Reilly v Devereux where abuse took place in the army, claim was denied as there wasn't the same level of personal contact nor was their a quasi-parental role etc.

Fuguestate

I'm running out of time.

Right now I've got:

Ryands v Fletcher
Nuisance
Trespass to Land
Trespass to Person
Negligence
Medical Negligence
Vicarious Liability
Passing Off
Occupier's Liability
Product Liability
Negligent Misstatement.

What's an obvious omission? (I feel like I'm crazy skipping Defamation)

iamanengine

Fuguestate wrote: »

I'm running out of time.

Right now I've got:

Ryands v Fletcher
Nuisance
Trespass to Land
Trespass to Person
Negligence
Medical Negligence
Vicarious Liability
Passing Off
Occupier's Liability
Product Liability
Negligent Misstatement.

What's an obvious omission? (I feel like I'm crazy skipping Defamation)

I'm doing the exact same plus Liability for Animals (probably won't come up but if it does it's easy). I'm feeling the same about Defamation, I might learn the general principles and the key cases just in case.

jewels652

For tort I studied the following:

General negligence and causation
Nuisance and rylands
Defamation
Damages
Occupiers
Trepass
Passing off
Products liability
Employers liability
Vicarious liability
Nervios shock

I am not doing negligent misstatement or liability of authorities fire or animals.
But I see some people covering them. Am I crazy not to cover them?

Fuguestate

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm doing the exact same plus Liability for Animals (probably won't come up but if it does it's easy). I'm feeling the same about Defamation, I might learn the general principles and the key cases just in case.

Yeah I think I'm gonna do it. It seems like too much of a gamble.

PuffleHuffLyra

Hope everyone's getting on okay!

It's my first sitting - just trying to work out how I'm gonna get there. Is it easy to walk from the Luas stop nearest the hotel to the hotel? I was just looking at google maps and it seems to be a massive roundabout area, no idea if it's possible to walk/how long it'll take me. Any help? I'll be getting the Luas on the red line from town out to the hotel.

Fuguestate

jewels652 wrote: »

Am I crazy not to cover them?

They're small topics, so they're good wild card options. I don't expect them to come up but if they do I'll be laughing.

You've loads down though. I'd be truly amazed if your didn't have enough for questions.

Bashbag89

jewels652 wrote: »

For tort I studied the following:

General negligence and causation
Nuisance and rylands
Defamation
Damages
Occupiers
Trepass
Passing off
Products liability
Employers liability
Vicarious liability
Nervios shock

I am not doing negligent misstatement or liability of authorities fire or animals.
But I see some people covering them. Am I crazy not to cover them?

I would suggest doing a quick run through liability for animals and make bullet point notes. Has been known to come up as a part of other problem qs. It's very straightforward and not much in it.
I would do the same for negligent mistatement ie: Get main principles from Hedley Byrne and Heller and then a couple of cases each for special proximity, assumption of responsibility and disclaimers. It is also quite a short and relatively straightforward topic.

Fuguestate

PuffleHuffLyra wrote: »

Hope everyone's getting on okay!

It's my first sitting - just trying to work out how I'm gonna get there. Is it easy to walk from the Luas stop nearest the hotel to the hotel? I was just looking at google maps and it seems to be a massive roundabout area, no idea if it's possible to walk/how long it'll take me. Any help? I'll be getting the Luas on the red line from town out to the hotel.

Yeah you can walk. There's a pedestrian bridge. It's a 3 or 4 minute walk from the Luas stop.

iamanengine

Fuguestate wrote: »

Re negligent misstatement.

Is the Caparo v Dickman review/restatement of the Hedley Byrne principle good law in Ireland, or is it only of persuasive authority. My manual positions it so it looks like the next key case on the subject but, unusually, it doesn't say it's been adopted by the Irish courts.

Many thanks.

I'm not 100% but I think it's good law. Looking at my notes, Caparo limited liability to those the adviser knew or should have known would rely on the advice and knew or should have known the general purpose for which the information was going to be used. This approach seems to have been used in Ireland in Delaney v AIB.

yournerd

bigtophat13 wrote: »

It really is such a toss up with contract, I'm the same, if I can I'll do 4 problems and one essay. It's usually more technical aspects so I'm gonna try have a knowledge of when they have the duty to contract in good faith as that came up both 2017 papers as an essay and in a problem last exam so he clearly likes it and it wasn't an essay last time. Privity was 2 of the last 3 so I'm leaving that out as I don't think it'll be an essay on it's own again, at most an A or B scenario. I want to have a knowledge also of their interpretation of documents although that's quite heavy and maybe know lots on the formal requirements of contracts for sale of land as they asked that in a form 2 of the last 5 (although once mixed with part performance). Besides that they like termination too, usually in relation to hong kong firs and that line but that was up last too. It really is random. Would be lovely to have something along the lines of consideration come up as it has before!

where does the good faith topic come up? what questions and chapter ist hat?

Fuguestate

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm not 100% but I think it's good law. Looking at my notes, Caparo limited liability to those the adviser knew or should have known would rely on the advice and knew or should have known the general purpose for which the information was going to be used. This approach seems to have been used in Ireland in Delaney v AIB.

Cheers!

The relevant chapter I'm using in my manual (I won't say which college) is a mess. It's riddled with typos and isn't explained very well.

In any event, in Glencar v Mayo (a case predominantly about pure economic loss) the Court recognised the Hedley Byrne position. That's a 2002 case. Caparo is 1990. So If I'm answering this I'm going with Hedley/Glencar but also flagging how the Caparo decision refined Hedley with a four part test that cuts right to the core of the knowledge/purpose nexus.

Frances456

Fuguestate wrote: »

Cheers!

The relevant chapter I'm using in my manual (I won't say which college) is a mess. It's riddled with typos and isn't explained very well.

In any event, in Glencar v Mayo (a case predominantly about pure economic loss) the Court recognised the Hedley Byrne position. That's a 2002 case. Caparo is 1990. So If I'm answering this I'm going with Hedley/Glencar but also flagging how the Caparo decision refined Hedley with a four part test that cuts right to the core of the knowledge/purpose nexus.

Two recent cases -
Walsh (reaffirmed Hedley)
Bates (focused on nature of the info and the relationship between the parties)

Fuguestate

Frances456 wrote: »

Two recent cases -
Walsh (reaffirmed Hedley)
Bates (focused on nature of the info and the relationship between the parties)

Excellent! Many thanks!

yournerd

If anyone has any colleges predictions, please share!

Insta92

For tort, I’m covering the following:

Negligence
Damages
Trespass to Person
Occupiers Liability
Nuisance/Rylands v Fletcher
Defamation
Passing off
Vicarious liability
Nervous shock

Would you think it’s necessary to cover anymore? Debating to do medical negligence with recent smear test scandal.

jjjjjop

Hey im sitting my first 3 this week. Only starting to learn off for company now.. im doing
all on directors about 4 chapters
authority
examinership
receivership
liquidation
ultra vires

im thinking ill only get 4 qs at most out of that or do you think i could get 5? so little time left

mariealice

ucdlaw_2018 wrote: »

It has been accepted, but only in exceptional circumstances like those in Fairlee.

This is a stupid question but what case was its accepted in? My manual doesn't mention it also is that ACC Bank v Fairlee?

mariealice

jjjjjop wrote: »

Hey im sitting my first 3 this week. Only starting to learn off for company now.. im doing
all on directors about 4 chapters
authority
examinership
receivership
liquidation
ultra vires

im thinking ill only get 4 qs at most out of that or do you think i could get 5? so little time left

I would definitely cover SLP as well, it comes up nearly every sitting and also borrowing by the company is extremely popular as well so that would be another good one to try and cover

Fuguestate

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm not 100% but I think it's good law. Looking at my notes, Caparo limited liability to those the adviser knew or should have known would rely on the advice and knew or should have known the general purpose for which the information was going to be used. This approach seems to have been used in Ireland in Delaney v AIB.

FYI.

In Wildgust v Bank of Ireland the Court held that Caparo was a clarification of the principles of Hedley rather than a major extension of it.

tommyq94

Has anyone ever sent their legislation to be checked by post?

My first exam is Company on Wednesday but I wont be in Dublin until around 4 on Tuesday so i'm thinking of sending my Companies Act to the Red Cow Hotel by post with next day delivery tomorrow just to be sure I get it checked in time.

Has anyone here done this before, or does anyone know if they normally stay around later during the day of an exam to take legislation?

yournerd

tommyq94 wrote: »

Has anyone ever sent their legislation to be checked by post?

My first exam is Company on Wednesday but I wont be in Dublin until around 4 on Tuesday so i'm thinking of sending my Companies Act to the Red Cow Hotel by post with next day delivery tomorrow just to be sure I get it checked in time.

Has anyone here done this before, or does anyone know if they normally stay around later during the day of an exam to take legislation?

Dont spend ur money on post!

If you give your legislation on the morning of the exam youll get it at 10:15 and tbh that is totally fine! same for all the other exams you will get the legislation at 10:30am the latest!

TCPIP

Also the Red Cow won't deal with it for you and the Society won't accept it by post.

luckyman

jjjjjop wrote: »

Hey im sitting my first 3 this week. Only starting to learn off for company now.. im doing
all on directors about 4 chapters
authority
examinership
receivership
liquidation
ultra vires

im thinking ill only get 4 qs at most out of that or do you think i could get 5? so little time left

do an answer on restriction. Handy one to do and comes up all the time. Good luck

bigtophat13

yournerd wrote: »

where does the good faith topic come up? what questions and chapter ist hat?

I did it from Implied terms in a Clark and Clarke book and reading some reports and then searching online, implied terms should be the spot anywhere

bigtophat13

jjjjjop wrote: »

Hey im sitting my first 3 this week. Only starting to learn off for company now.. im doing
all on directors about 4 chapters
authority
examinership
receivership
liquidation
ultra vires

im thinking ill only get 4 qs at most out of that or do you think i could get 5? so little time left

mariealice wrote: »

I would definitely cover SLP as well, it comes up nearly every sitting and also borrowing by the company is extremely popular as well so that would be another good one to try and cover

luckyman wrote: »

do an answer on restriction. Handy one to do and comes up all the time. Good luck

Definitely agree with the SLP and Borrowing even though the second is broad. Restriction is very common but was up last time.

I'm going in with
-Directors (only the 228 duties and that though)
-SLP
-Minority Shareholder Rights
-Liquidation
-Floating Charges

as my preferred 5 and they came up in 4,4,3,4,3 of the last 5 sittings respectively. Besides that Examinership and Receivership are good shouts as is ultra vires and authority as they're awhile coming up. You have a good chance of being fine!

FE1s2018

Has anyone got predictions for Criminal or what they think might come up?

I've covered all Offences and Defences, AR, MR, Complicity.

I haven't yet covered practice and procedure- courts, arrest/warrant, bail etc.. or classification? Does anyone think an essay on Strict Liability is due a run?

Any advice much appreciated!!

lawless11

Is it okay for someone else to drop my piece of legislation in (my student ID being on the legislation)?

LawBoy2018

Does any legend want to give me a short breakdown of the cases they'd use + the relevant law for a PQ in Vicarious Liability? Or even have an up to date sample answer that I could use? Freaking out I will help you in any way I can