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

the baby bull elephant

Which number goes on the legislation? The letter gives me an ID number and a candidate number and then asks me to put my exam number on legislation I hand in. I presume it's the candidate number but just wanted to check.

xBell123

Hi

Would anyone have a grid for constitutional they'd be willing to share?

Having a panic.

sapphire309

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

Which number goes on the legislation? The letter gives me an ID number and a candidate number and then asks me to put my exam number on legislation I hand in. I presume it's the candidate number but just wanted to check.

Candidate number, i.e. the short number

jewels652

Hello all
Contract question
Illegality under common law does not seen to appear at all only illegality under statute I am thinking of leaving out illegality under common Law??

Too risky?

kasey0123

jewels652 wrote: »

Hello all
Contract question
Illegality under common law does not seen to appear at all only illegality under statute I am thinking of leaving out illegality under common Law??

Too risky?

I think stat illegality is due a run, I've just decided to tackle it this second.. big case on it seems to be the Quinn case & Hussein, I've seen Cliona Kelly note in her reports that not many people answer on illegality so.

Common Law illegality seems pretty useless, but it's probably worth reading and learning a case under each heading there's only 7 i think... some are old like contracts to promote immorality.. like cohabitation agreements, silly things like that lol

Law4567

I’m at a serious loss with equity, any advice on what to cover/leave out? Any help is much appreciated

jewels652

kasey0123 wrote: »

I think stat illegality is due a run, I've just decided to tackle it this second.. big case on it seems to be the Quinn case & Hussein, I've seen Cliona Kelly note in her reports that not many people answer on illegality so.

Common Law illegality seems pretty useless, but it's probably worth reading and learning a case under each heading there's only 7 i think... some are old like contracts to promote immorality.. like cohabitation agreements, silly things like that lol

Yes probably safe to do some reading on common Law illegality.
Can you tell me what’s the Hussein case about? Please.
I don’t have it on my notes and what other topics are you covering for context?

jus_me

Is leaving out equality in EU crazy?

sapphire309

jewels652 wrote: »

Yes probably safe to do some reading on common Law illegality.
Can you tell me what’s the Hussein case about? Please.
I don’t have it on my notes and what other topics are you covering for context?

It was a 2012 case with a very harsh application of statutory illegality, concerned a non-Irish national and employment permit.
Be careful with the Hussein case - the High Court decision was overturned by the Supreme Court.

xBell123

I've done all my notes on constitutional over the past few months but now Im trying to properly learn them, do you think this is enough:

President & AG
Separation of Powers
Referenda & elections
Obstacles to constitutional challenge
Trial in due course of law & Right to a jury trial
Property rights & Right to earn a livelihood
Family & education
Equality

Also considering whether I should revise Right to life / Abortion? Could be topical considering the referendum?

yournerd

xBell123 wrote: »

Hi

Would anyone have a grid for constitutional they'd be willing to share?

Having a panic.

Send me ur email!

Gunslinger92

xBell123 wrote: »

I've done all my notes on constitutional over the past few months but now Im trying to properly learn them, do you think this is enough:

President & AG
Separation of Powers
Referenda & elections
Obstacles to constitutional challenge
Trial in due course of law & Right to a jury trial
Property rights & Right to earn a livelihood
Family & education
Equality

Also considering whether I should revise Right to life / Abortion? Could be topical considering the referendum?

I've learned similar to you. Can't decide if it's plenty or not enough! I'm going to have a quick look at abortion alright, I know it pretty well anyways and it's short enough.

kasey0123

jewels652 wrote: »

Yes probably safe to do some reading on common Law illegality.
Can you tell me what’s the Hussein case about? Please.
I don’t have it on my notes and what other topics are you covering for context?

Basically, the case involved statutory illegality in relation to the 2003 Employment Permits Act. The Plaintiff, Mr.Younis was a Pakistani national and he was working in a restaurant as a chef owned by his second cousin, working conditions were horrendous he allegedly worked for 7 years, 7 days a week with one period of time in which he had a month off... He also had little to no english so the cousin was looking after his work permits (which he really wasn't that was the issue!)

He became aware of his employment rights in late august 2009 after working in horrendous conditions for 7 years, he brought a claim against his cousin in the labour court, they awarded him 90K. However then the cousin made a plea of illegality under the Permits Act as he had no permit to work in Ireland, even though Mr. Younis thought his cousin had his documentation in order...

Anyone who does not have a permit to work llegally cannot enforce employment rights under irish law, thus the judge I think Justice O Higgins had to strike down the contract as void due to stat illegality... The decision was overturned by SC on a technical point in Judicial review but it was unrelated to illegality so we haven't had any further developement in this regard...

There's other easy stat illegality to remember like s.3 Fam home protection act, if you did property or family law you can probably bluff on this for a while, then there's s.13 and s.7 of the unfair dismissals act ..

The main case though is the Quinn Case for implied illegality, there's loads of info on the internet about it (involved guarentees given by the quinns to IBRC in respect of loans given to other companies in the QUINN group, the Quinns alledged the loans were contrary to s.60 of the CA and the Market abuse regualtions. HC agreed, SC overturned it.)

Basically the SC overturned the HC decision and implemented a policy based approach towards the enforcement of contract where there is alleged illegality.. thus the approach is statute specific rather than case specific. The SC gave a really long winded judgment about it speaking about the ever changing social dynamic and regulatory world and how a rigid application can lead to unfair results... they've taken guidance in this regard from the UK based approach which is also a policy based approach (Mirza v Patel )

This essentially means that unlike giving trial judges and the courts the discretion to decide for themselves if a contract should be enforceable or unenforceable due to implied ilegality, they now look to the statue that created the illegality in the first place to determine what the aim and objective of the statutue was, this involves looking to the wording and beyond the wording to determine the requirement of public policy!

If that made ANY sense lol. I am procrastinating

jewels652

kasey0123 wrote: »

Basically, the case involved statutory illegality in relation to the 2003 Employment Permits Act. The Plaintiff, Mr.Younis was a Pakistani national and he was working in a restaurant as a chef owned by his second cousin, working conditions were horrendous he allegedly worked for 7 years, 7 days a week with one period of time in which he had a month off... He also had little to no english so the cousin was looking after his work permits (which he really wasn't that was the issue!)

He became aware of his employment rights in late august 2009 after working in horrendous conditions for 7 years, he brought a claim against his cousin in the labour court, they awarded him 90K. However then the cousin made a plea of illegality under the Permits Act as he had no permit to work in Ireland, even though Mr. Younis thought his cousin had his documentation in order...

Anyone who does not have a permit to work llegally cannot enforce employment rights under irish law, thus the judge I think Justice O Higgins had to strike down the contract as void due to stat illegality... The decision was overturned by SC on a technical point in Judicial review but it was unrelated to illegality so we haven't had any further developement in this regard...

There's other easy stat illegality to remember like s.3 Fam home protection act, if you did property or family law you can probably bluff on this for a while, then there's s.13 and s.7 of the unfair dismissals act ..

The main case though is the Quinn Case for implied illegality, there's loads of info on the internet about it (involved guarentees given by the quinns to IBRC in respect of loans given to other companies in the QUINN group, the Quinns alledged the loans were contrary to s.60 of the CA and the Market abuse regualtions. HC agreed, SC overturned it.)

Basically the SC overturned the HC decision and implemented a policy based approach towards the enforcement of contract where there is alleged illegality.. thus the approach is statute specific rather than case specific. The SC gave a really long winded judgment about it speaking about the ever changing social dynamic and regulatory world and how a rigid application can lead to unfair results... they've taken guidance in this regard from the UK based approach which is also a policy based approach (Mirza v Patel )

This essentially means that unlike giving trial judges and the courts the discretion to decide for themselves if a contract should be enforceable or unenforceable due to implied ilegality, they now look to the statue that created the illegality in the first place to determine what the aim and objective of the statutue was, this involves looking to the wording and beyond the wording to determine the requirement of public policy!

If that made ANY sense lol. I am procrastinating

It does make sense indeed.
Thank you so much

lawlad101

Law4567 wrote: »

I’m at a serious loss with equity, any advice on what to cover/leave out? Any help is much appreciated

I've done:
All of injunctions
Specific performance
Rectification of unilateral mistake
Undue Influence
Three Certainties
All of charitable including puprose/cy pres
Constructive trusts
Trustees

Then as backups I have:
Strong v bird/dmc
Presumption of advancement/purchase money
Tracing

Surely this is enough! I hope...

kasey0123

jewels652 wrote: »

It does make sense indeed.
Thank you so much

No problem. Dillon Eustace I think have a good leaflet type thing on the Quinn case online.

Also I'm trying to cover O and A, consideration and estoppel, consumer protection and excl caluses, misrep, terms, frustration, bit on damages and unilateral mistake...

Leaving out bits of chapters that have just been up, and the likes of privity, agency , formal requirements..

can't really wrap my head round exemption clauses as of yet, and might do mistaken identity, if i've time...

What are you doing? there is so much

kasey0123

Law4567 wrote: »

I’m at a serious loss with equity, any advice on what to cover/leave out? Any help is much appreciated

I'm attempting to cover:

Purpose trusts
Resulting trusts
Constructive trusts
mandatory injunctions
QT inj
specific performance, & rectification
Estoppel
Learning a few cases for undue influence just in case
briefly skim through tracing if there's time

Hoping to get a question and a half of maybe two from Purpose trusts alone wishful thinking,

Seems charitable, purpose trusts, some injunctions and undue influence are very consistent topics if that's any use

Pollylou75

Would anyone have some constitutional past papers I could have. I'm trying to see if I can predict the case note question on the basis of past case note questions. Any tips would be great too

jewels652

kasey0123 wrote: »

No problem. Dillon Eustace I think have a good leaflet type thing on the Quinn case online.

Also I'm trying to cover O and A, consideration and estoppel, consumer protection and excl caluses, misrep, terms, frustration, bit on damages and unilateral mistake...

Leaving out bits of chapters that have just been up, and the likes of privity, agency , formal requirements..

can't really wrap my head round exemption clauses as of yet, and might do mistaken identity, if i've time...

What are you doing? there is so much

I am doing the same as you but I am going to go through intention to create legal relations you know family relationship Balfour v Balfour and capacity especially minors I think they are due a run.

Gunslinger92

Pollylou75 wrote: »

Would anyone have some constitutional past papers I could have. I'm trying to see if I can predict the case note question on the basis of past case note questions. Any tips would be great too

A few pages back someone did what you're trying to do and found that cases almost never come up twice in the case note question I'm treating it as a bonus question rather than one to bank on. Some recent cases that could be on it, in my opinion- dpp v Barry Doyle, NVH v minister for justice, bederev. I could be way off

twitchandsweep

Contract

Anyone think parol evidence could come up in some shape or form?

Roisin_Law

Does anyone have contract exam papers they are willing to swap? I have criminal. I also need property and equity papers but contract is the most urgent :-) cant believe it's exam time already!

jus_me

Can anyone tell me if there was any surprises in March due to property having a new examiner or did it follow the usual past paper question style??

yournerd

I have the EU and Consttituional material if you wanna shoot your email!

Townton

Pollylou75 wrote: »

Would anyone have some constitutional past papers I could have. I'm trying to see if I can predict the case note question on the basis of past case note questions. Any tips would be great too

Does anyone have Cities predictions for the constitutional case notes?

derv96

Hi all,

Just wondering can legislation be tabbed and highlighted? afraid to make a mark on it..

twitchandsweep

derv96 wrote: »

Hi all,

Just wondering can legislation be tabbed and highlighted? afraid to make a mark on it..

Yes you can tab and highlight your legislation just no writing

olliej

Anyone know if Griffith or City Colleges recommended topics to focus on for Contract?

bigtophat13

Hate to be that person but anyone who just sat that , was it legitimate to put stuff on directors duties into the distributions question? I only had about 5 cases on the distribution and 2 pages and put my directors stuff in in a panic?

david_etc

For the inevitable question about what came up, and for those of you (possibly including me...) studying Company at next sitting:

Q1: Essay on duty of company to act in interests of the company and its exceptions
Q2: Problem - duties of receiver
Q3: Essay on ostensible authority, rule in Turaquand's case and S.40 of the 2014 Act.
Q4: Problem - personal liability of directors for (a) failing to maintain books/records; (b) fraudulent/reckless trading
Q5: Essay on restriction orders
Q6: Problem on distributions
Q7: Essay on exceptions to Foss v Harbottle/derivative action
Q8: Problem - (a) retention of title clause; (b) charge over book debts