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

jus_me

lawless11 wrote: »

Thank you. This is technically true. You just lowered my stress by 50%. Da real mvp.

Exactly problem questions are about what your outcome is and there’s usually more than one right answer so I’m sure whatever direction with the right reasoning is totally grand

kasey0123

Can any kind souls tell me some inspirational stories about how they banked 50% on an exam when they didn’t spot all the issues and made a few mistakes

Fe1andDone

Does anyone know what came up in March for EU and Equity? I'm not actually looking for a whole grid just the questions from the last exams if anyone has them handy. TIA!

lawless11

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

How is it possible to spend all this time studying EU .... to realise none of it has stuck. It's as if my brain refuses to learn it.
Sure I may as well go in and get my €105 worth of frustration nonetheless.
May as well head for a few pints for the evening as I may as well be hung for a sheep than hung for a lamb.

Awh I get ya... still pondering over what to cram now. Leaving out Private International Law & freedom of capital movement. I'll probably ditch mergers AND state aid, it is maybe due a run, but if so it will be the last question and well... just don't have the memory space to learn it now I guess.

sapphire309

Came out of property thinking I’d nailed it and in top form! So what do I do? Check boards.ie to see how everyone else got on... aaaaand am plummeted into despair realising how much I actually got wrong -_-

jewels652

sapphire309 wrote: »

Came out of property thinking I’d nailed it and in top form! So what do I do? Check boards.ie to see how everyone else got on... aaaaand am plummeted into despair realising how much I actually got wrong -_-

Exactly, me too.

lawless11

jewels652 wrote: »

Exactly, me too.

+1. I think it's not a great idea .

gallon27

Anyone have any of the colleges predictions for EU?

Cutting out half of the course and would like to know if I am on the right track !

fehun123

ally1234 wrote: »

Hi everyone, hope study is going ok. It’s tough going isn’t it!!

I have a quick Q re criminal and the sexual offences topic - has the 2017 Act brought any changes in the area of offences against mentally impaired persons?? Any information/advice is appreciated as always. Thank you.

gallon27 wrote: »

Anyone have any of the colleges predictions for EU?

Cutting out half of the course and would like to know if I am on the right track !

Hmm from what I can remember off the top of my head, Independent have predicted equality, direct effect, mergers and effectiveness and equivalence. I, personally, have cut mergers haha

Magic Mike 1234

Lets be honest with me here😂😂 I'd you Do three and a half good standard question a half an ok question and the last one being very poor your going to fail right😂😂

MagicThree18

Magic Mike 1234 wrote: »

Lets be honest with me here���� I'd you Do three and a half good standard question a half an ok question and the last one being very poor your going to fail right����

Last year, in Contract, I done three good answers, one okay answer and basically wiped my inky fingers on the page as the fifth, and I passed. And when I say I done three good answers, I mean just good, nothing special.

GingerAleSnail

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

How is it possible to spend all this time studying EU .... to realise none of it has stuck. It's as if my brain refuses to learn it.
Sure I may as well go in and get my €105 worth of frustration nonetheless.
May as well head for a few pints for the evening as I may as well be hung for a sheep than hung for a lamb.

Same boat, have been reading this horror for two months, still can't repeat any of it. There's just far too much to take in

HenryHodgson

Hi folks, did Cy-Pres come up in the last round in Equity?

Thanks all

Supermax1988

HenryHodgson wrote: »

Hi folks, did Cy-Pres come up in the last round in Equity?

Thanks all

It did not. There was a problem question on charitable trusts but no Cy-Pres.

user115

I wouldn't get too stressed with missing an issue here and there I read in the examiners reports in criminal that he throws in lots of issues but doesn't expect candidates to address them all. I'd imagine like there is let's set number issues and then you get marked for addressing like 75% of what's there.

I wouldn't freak out over it, what's done is done and no one on here is an expert so everyone's guess is as good as the next one, so don't be feeling worse about it. I'm done today so exhausted from it, thanks for all the tips and advice people it was a major help good luck with the rest of them, hope to God I'm not doing these 3 again next March

MagicThree18

HenryHodgson wrote: »

Hi folks, did Cy-Pres come up in the last round in Equity?

Thanks all

No, it was a problem in October 17 and an essay in March 2017, but nothing last year.

Henry, I like the cut of your jib.

HenryHodgson

Supermax1988 wrote: »

It did not. There was a problem question on charitable trusts but no Cy-Pres.

Wonderful, thank you!

Vegetarian2017

kasey0123 wrote:

Can any kind souls tell me some inspirational stories about how they banked 50% on an exam when they didn’t spot all the issues and made a few mistakes

Not me but I have heard lots of different stories like people saying they mentioned x amount of caselaw and 3 good questions maybe 1 ok and 1 bad and passed. Nobody knows what their idea of bad is to another, so it is the blind leading the blind for now.
I genuinely think you get the pass based on it being clear to the examiner you understand what you're talking about.(i know that sounds stupidly obvious) but people go in revising pages of a manual or sample questions and can learn to their hearts content yet don't really understand what their saying if you makes sense? At least that my take on.

HenryHodgson

MagicThree18 wrote: »

No, it was a problem in October 17 and an essay in March 2017, but nothing last year.

Henry, I like the cut of your jib.

Thank you, I like the thought of not bothering to look at anything on Charitable Trusts unrelated to Cy-Pres.

holliek

Anyone else drowning with cy-pres?? I know its tipped to come up but not still can't get my head around it

Tony_TwoLegs

lawless11 wrote: »

Awh I get ya... still pondering over what to cram now. Leaving out Private International Law & freedom of capital movement. I'll probably ditch mergers AND state aid, it is maybe due a run, but if so it will be the last question and well... just don't have the memory space to learn it now I guess.

I've done none of those 4. Albeit looked at most other stuff. Realistically I need another 16 days to have a good stab. Unfortunately 16 hours (less a fanciful sleep) is useless

Tony_TwoLegs

GingerAleSnail wrote: »

Same boat, have been reading this horror for two months, still can't repeat any of it. There's just far too much to take in

This is my last exam and all the others haven't proven to be this slippery. I can't fathom why it's not sinking in. I guess it's a bit dry. A lot is quite boring. And, we'll never use it in practise. They don't ram EU down your throat to enter Kings Inn

ArthurDayne

Am I right in saying that for Specific Performance, only defences and contracts for personal services have ever come up?  

Would be nice to ditch all the other noise from that chapter.  I see it also comes up in conjunction with rectification the odd time, so worth bearing that in mind.

lawlad101

Can someone help me with Mareva Injunctions?
A recent question on the topic describes how Mareva Injunctions have become easier to obtain for plaintiffs in Ireland. I thought a plaintiff needed to prove malicious or nefaerious intent regarding the removal of assets?

FE1s2018

EU:

Institutions/ Democratic Deficit
General Principles
Direct Effect + MSL
Enforcement (258)
Annulment (263)
Preliminary Reference (267)
Free Movement- Goods (34, 30, 110), Services (56), Establishment (49), Workers (45)
Citizenship
Equality

Will that be OK? No competition, mergers, state aid etc. No case note question.

madonna123

Fe1andDone wrote: »

Does anyone know what came up in March for EU and Equity? I'm not actually looking for a whole grid just the questions from the last exams if anyone has them handy. TIA!

Question 1 was a really long one,REALLY LONG.. abbreviated in parts
2years ago Beatific Bank entered loan agreement with Rusty Retail, agreed to provide Rusty with 100,000 to fund expansion of its chain of shops selling bikes. Rusty LTD was brain child of Anto who ran the shops and made all commercial decisions.
Anto was MD & 95% shareholder. His younger Bro Jason was Director and held 5%.
Anto & J's father died when the boys were young Anto was 8 years older so J looked up to him. Despite Anto being older and acting in a parenting way towards J, J did very well for himself, better than Anto.
Neither Bro married or had kids.
J bought a house, Anto bought none. J had only a share-hold of Rusty Ltd.. no hands on involvement.
Loan between Rusty and Beatific bank required J's house as a guarantee.
J felt obligated to allow the charge over his home due to the parental way Anto had been with him growing up.
Loan agreement required a letter from J's Solicitor confirming independent legal advice prior to execution of the guarantee.
J & Anto attended the offices of Solicitor who advised them both of the consequences of the guarantee. Note: the Solicitor also acted for Rusty Ltd (The business obtaining the loan)
Following the meeting the Solicitor wrote to the bank saying

"we confirm that we act for Rusty Rentals Ltd and also for Jason Watson of Ballymac Lodge. We further confirm that on xx/xx/xx both Anthony & Jason attended our offices whereupon the nature and consequence of both the loan and guarantee were explained to them in full"


Th bank manager, anto & J signed the loan and guarantee agreement, and the loan money was forwarded to Rusty Ltd.
Business failed .. went into liquidation before money was repaid Bank wishes to enforce charge over J's house.
Advise the likelihood of success, of the defences, if any, that may be available to Jason and of the merit of those defences

ArthurDayne

FE1s2018 wrote: »

EU:

Institutions/ Democratic Deficit
General Principles
Direct Effect + MSL
Enforcement (258)
Annulment (263)
Preliminary Reference (267)
Free Movement- Goods (34, 30, 110), Services (56), Establishment (49), Workers (45)
Citizenship
Equality

Will that be OK? No competition, mergers, state aid etc. No case note question.

I covered less than that last sitting (also left out all the competition stuff and didn't cover specific cases) and got through the exam no issue.  You should be well safe there.

madonna123

Question 2
When considering how best a court might determine whether or not an estoppel arises in any given case, the English High Court in Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co ltd 1981 1 All ER 897 at 915-916 suggested that the most appropriate approach is to ascertain whether, in the particular circumstances:
" it would be unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment rather that to inquiring whether the circumstances can be fitted within the confines of some preconceived formula serving as a universal yardstick for every form of unconscionable behaviour"

Consider whether the courts have adopted this suggested test of "unconscionability" in subsequent estoppel cases.

bigtophat13

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I covered less than that last sitting (also left out all the competition stuff and didn't cover specific cases) and got through the exam no issue.  You should be well safe there.

I have a lot less than this, banking on 263, DE with Liability, FMOG, FMOW and then I have equality, human rights, general principles and democratic deficit. Does 258 ever come up? How would that even be in a question?

fe1exams2018

Does anybody know did the eu examiner change in 2015? Looking back at papers everything seems really predictable up until 2015 but after that there’s not many questions I could do on the papers easily or make out what they’re about