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

Tony_TwoLegs

FE1s2018 wrote: »

Three questions with 1 theme.

Q1- Is there any extenuating circumstances with the FE-1's for medical emergency/ bereavement of family member type thing or would that just get you a refund as opposed to being considered when correcting?

Q2- Is there an opportunity to view your scripts when you get your result, before you can decide to appeal? Is the result given- e.g. Constitutional- 46- or does it give a break down for the marks awarded in each section?

Q3- How is it like legal for them to fail you for papers you passed even if you didn't pass 3 in the one go? Like say you passed two and failed two- how can they fail you for the 4?

1. If it's retrospective sympathetic marking you're after, that's a new one on me!! I wouldn't play a match, lose, and then tell the ref I wasn't feeling great and ask for an extra goal be awarded to me. You COULD ask.

2. There's no viewing BUT case law in this area has evolved in last 12 months. A European case (Irish) tax student failed their equiv exams 4 times. They operate like the LS. It was held they were owed a duty to be allowed view them. On results day you get a number e.g. 45 or 60 or whatever. That's your percentile. That's all you get.The appeal is not a regrading. It's an expensive 115e calculator exercise.


3. Yep. I failed 2 and passed 2 my first sitting. It used to be you had to pass 4 on your first sitting I believe. Imagine!

FE!student

ArthurDayne wrote: »

All kicking off here !

Anyway -- does anyone know how you would differentiate QT or Interlocutory in problem questions? So say someone is anticipating a violation of their right in the near future -- how do you know whether to apply a Quia Timet approach or advise an interlocutory approach? They seem to be similar circumstances but the answers would be totally different of course as they have different effects and different case law.

Am I being thick or is there a quick way of identifying which one is relevant in a PQ scenario?

My understanding is that you apply both if the injunction required is Quia Timet and at the interlocutory stage.

Therefore the Campus Oil Test should be applied to these questions and then the test set out in Szabo for Quia Timet.

That's my understanding but I'm confused now after reading other posts.

bigtophat13

FE!student wrote: »

My understanding is that you apply both if the injunction required is Quia Timet and at the interlocutory stage.

Therefore the Campus Oil Test should be applied to these questions and then the test set out in Szabo for Quia Timet.

That's my understanding but I'm confused now after reading other posts.

No you're definitely right there don't worry. They say that in theory it should be the same but its just a higher evidential burdens to pass.

MagicThree18

FE!student wrote: »

My understanding is that you apply both if the injunction required is Quia Timet and at the interlocutory stage.

Therefore the Campus Oil Test should be applied to these questions and then the test set out in Szabo for Quia Timet.

That's my understanding but I'm confused now after reading other posts.

bigtophat13 wrote: »

No you're definitely right there don't worry. They say that in theory it should be the same but its just a higher evidential burdens to pass.

That's my understanding as well so I'm sorry if I seem to have caused some sort of confusion.

My approach to a QT problem will be to apply Campus Oil test, then speak about the higher burden, then look for expert evidence in support of it.

Is that correct?

My only uncertainty is whether the "substantial risk of danger" requirement replaces the first-limb of Campus Oil ("serious question to be tried") or if it's a separate, fourth consideration that's applied after the three-limbs of Campus have been satisfied?

Kois

What came up on EU?

ArthurDayne

MagicThree18 wrote: »

That's my understanding as well so I'm sorry if I seem to have caused some sort of confusion.

My approach to a QT problem will be to apply Campus Oil test, then speak about the higher burden, then look for expert evidence in support of it.

Is that correct?

My only uncertainty is whether the "substantial risk of danger" requirement replaces the first-limb of Campus Oil ("serious question to be tried") or if it's a separate, fourth consideration that's applied after the three-limbs of Campus have been satisfied?

Looking at the past papers -- Q8 October 2017 was a mandatory interlocutory question. It mentions in the problem question that he had already initiated proceedings against the defendant for specific performance but wanted to know if he could get an injunction "before the hearing" i.e. clearly interlocutory so go through Campus Oil but then mention the Lingham v HSE case because it's mandatory.

Contrast that with Q6 October 2016 where it's a lady who doesn't want this film crew or something to set up beside her business because she thinks it will ruin her business and annoy the pensioners in the area. No mention that she initiated proceedings already. So I think that's more a straight up ordinary QT injunction and you just go through the Szabo case law and the special circumstances the court will bear in mind (for example -- the public interest in this particular instance about the pensioners -- but Bellew v Cement the courts don't look beyond the parties because it's a matter of private law.

So maybe the clue is in the question? Any talk of proceedings having been intitiated lets you know that it's interlocutory?

lawlad101

Equity

Injunctions
Mareva and AP
Specific performance
Rectification of unilateral mistake
Undue Influence
Three Certainties
Purpose trusts
Constructive trusts
Tracing
Trusties

This is overdoing it surely?

HenryHodgson

lawlad101 wrote: »

Equity

Injunctions
Mareva and AP
Specific performance
Rectification of unilateral mistake
Undue Influence
Three Certainties
Purpose trusts
Constructive trusts
Tracing
Trusties

This is overdoing it surely?

May I ask why you've chosen to do Mareva over Qt's in light of it being on the last paper? Have you heard whispers I have not?

holliek

Just checking after seeing the queries about Q.T. problem questions.. If we get one do we discuss the Campus Oil test aswell then?

MagicThree18

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Looking at the past papers -- Q8 October 2017 was a mandatory interlocutory question. It mentions in the problem question that he had already initiated proceedings against the defendant for specific performance but wanted to know if he could get an injunction "before the hearing" i.e. clearly interlocutory so go through Campus Oil but then mention the Lingham v HSE case because it's mandatory.

Contrast that with Q6 October 2016 where it's a lady who doesn't want this film crew or something to set up beside her business because she thinks it will ruin her business and annoy the pensioners in the area. No mention that she initiated proceedings already. So I think that's more a straight up ordinary QT injunction and you just go through the Szabo case law and the special circumstances the court will bear in mind (for example -- the public interest in this particular instance about the pensioners -- but Bellew v Cement the courts don't look beyond the parties because it's a matter of private law.

So maybe the clue is in the question? Any talk of proceedings having been intitiated lets you know that it's interlocutory?

Many thanks. Makes perfect sense. I have notes from last year (they're accurate, thankfully) but I'm only really getting into them now. I could have royally screwed myself with that one. Phew!

ArthurDayne

lawlad101 wrote: »

Equity

Injunctions
Mareva and AP
Specific performance
Rectification of unilateral mistake
Undue Influence
Three Certainties
Purpose trusts
Constructive trusts
Tracing
Trusties

This is overdoing it surely?

I'm covering similar, though leaving out mareva and AP and doing Undue Influence. Also skimming Resulting Trusts.

This is my only exam though this sitting. 7/8 passed and just want to really kill Equity with fire tomorrow.

lawlad101

HenryHodgson wrote: »

May I ask why you've chosen to do Mareva over Qt's in light of it being on the last paper? Have you heard whispers I have not?

I'm covering QT under the Injunctions part. All I have for it is AG v Manchester, Rathmines and Pembroke Hospital, Szabo and Ryanair.

I know Mareva was on last paper yeah it's more there as a back up in case the examiner tries to pull a fast one!

lawlad101

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I'm covering similar, though leaving out mareva and AP and doing Undue Influence. Also skimming Resulting Trusts.

This is my only exam though this sitting. 7/8 passed and just want to really kill Equity with fire tomorrow.

Yeah I said above I'm not doing Mareva/AP in much detail I'm just paranoid best of luck to you!

sapphire309

Is it necessary to look at the various circumstances in which a departure from Campus Oil is justified? i.e. in defamation proceedings, no arguable defence to plaintiff's claim, etc.

MagicThree18

sapphire309 wrote: »

Is it necessary to look at the various circumstances in which a departure from Campus Oil is justified? i.e. in defamation proceedings, no arguable defence to plaintiff's claim, etc.

I believe there was once an essay question that asked exactly that.

bigtophat13

MagicThree18 wrote: »

I believe there was once an essay question that asked exactly that.

That is terrifying.

sapphire309

MagicThree18 wrote: »

I believe there was once an essay question that asked exactly that.

Thank you....

And with that in mind, I think I have come to the conclusion that I cannot sit this exam tomorrow. There is not enough hours between now and the exam to cover even the bare minimum

bigtophat13

sapphire309 wrote: »

Thank you....

And with that in mind, I think I have come to the conclusion that I cannot sit this exam tomorrow. There is not enough hours between now and the exam to cover even the bare minimum

It was once, you'll be fine, just work the probabilities!

MagicThree18

bigtophat13 wrote: »

That is terrifying.

sapphire309 wrote: »

Thank you....

And with that in mind, I think I have come to the conclusion that I cannot sit this exam tomorrow. There is not enough hours between now and the exam to cover even the bare minimum

I'm not covering it either. I don't know if it's come up often, but it has come up.

Whatever you do, sit the exam. I'm worried about it as well, but I'm drawing from my previous failed attempt to try get me over the line. I've a fair idea what I need to do having missed out before. Even if tomorrow doesn't go your way you'll benefit from the attempt. It won't feel like that when you're walking out of there tomorrow, but it will stand to you.

bigtophat13

For Undue influence, is getting independent advice conclusive? Cases like Barclays and Roche in Ireland seem to suggest it will be but then cases like Carroll v Carroll and Joyce v Prendergast took issue with them not being independent? Or is it inconclusive?

bigtophat13

MagicThree18 wrote: »

I'm not covering it either. I don't know if it's come up often, but it has come up.

Whatever you do, sit the exam. I'm worried about it as well, but I'm drawing from my previous failed attempt to try get me over the line. I've a fair idea what I need to do having missed out before. Even if tomorrow doesn't go you way you'll benefit from the attempt. It won't feel like that when you're walking out if there tomorrow, but it will stand to you.

Exactly this, if you don't sit it you definitely fail. Even if its a 5% chance you pass (which I'm sure it's more than) then its better than 0%

ArthurDayne

sapphire309 wrote: »

Thank you....

And with that in mind, I think I have come to the conclusion that I cannot sit this exam tomorrow. There is not enough hours between now and the exam to cover even the bare minimum

I got to this point last sitting when I had a grim 3 days of exams in a row. For EU and Constitutional especially I winged those exams with enough waffle to feed a Belgian family for life. I passed them (somehow).

Equity I think is usually the last exam, by this stage everyone is tired, cranky and generally staring with an unhealthy desire at that bottle of gin sitting on the kitchen bench. Punch a punchbag, run around the house screaming, listen to some heavy metal -- or do all three simultaneously -- whatever it takes just get the energy up for one last push this evening. Everyone gets through these exams eventually -- but only if they actually sit them! So go for it!

lawless11

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I got to this point last sitting when I had a grim 3 days of exams in a row. For EU and Constitutional especially I winged those exams with enough waffle to feed a Belgian family for life. I passed them (somehow).

You're giving me a faint hope here for EU now with all that waffle. I'm sure we could open a waffle business together (a).

Otherwise, Q.8 of October 2017 - it is a mandatory interlocutory injunction right? I think I saw it in passing somewhere but just to make sure, don't have the report on my hands.

MagicThree18

I'm prepping a note question on showing how four maxims continue to be relevant. Can someone give me a practical example for 'clean hands'. For example, to illustrate how 'he who seeks equity, must do equity' continues to be relevant, I've used the example of an applicant for an interlocutory injunction having to give an undertaking in damages first. I'm looking for an example like that. I know clean hands is written into the very fabric of the subject but I'm struggling for an easy to remember nugget.

bigtophat13

MagicThree18 wrote: »

I'm prepping a note question on showing how four maxims continue to be relevant. Can someone give me a practical example for 'clean hands'. For example, to illustrate how 'he who seeks equity, must do equity' continues to be relevant, I've used the example of an applicant for an interlocutory injunction having to give an undertaking in damages first. I'm looking for an example like that. I know clean hands is written into the very fabric of the subject but I'm struggling for an easy to remember nugget.

For something a little different to show broad knowledge in Kelly v Simpson the court wouldn't order specific performance where they had been "creative" with their explanation of planning permission to prospective buyers, saying things along the lines of "sure you can get a local to apply" and there are others in specific performance like Webster v Cecil where they make a mistake you can't jump on it, but the first one is more relevant.

What else are you preparing for the note question? I probably won't get time myself as I'm looking over everything again and considering looking at estoppel but what topics are expected / best ?

MagicThree18

bigtophat13 wrote: »

For something a little different to show broad knowledge in Kelly v Simpson the court wouldn't order specific performance where they had been "creative" with their explanation of planning permission to prospective buyers, saying things along the lines of "sure you can get a local to apply" and there are others in specific performance like Webster v Cecil where they make a mistake you can't jump on it, but the first one is more relevant.

Brilliant, cheers!

ArthurDayne

lawless11 wrote: »

You're giving me a faint hope here for EU now with all that waffle. I'm sure we could open a waffle business together (a).

Otherwise, Q.8 of October 2017 - it is a mandatory interlocutory injunction right? I think I saw it in passing somewhere but just to make sure, don't have the report on my hands.

Yes it is. Examiners report noted it. Seems to be that the giveaway in a problem scenario is when legal proceedings have already commenced.

sapphire309

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I got to this point last sitting when I had a grim 3 days of exams in a row. For EU and Constitutional especially I winged those exams with enough waffle to feed a Belgian family for life. I passed them (somehow).

Equity I think is usually the last exam, by this stage everyone is tired, cranky and generally staring with an unhealthy desire at that bottle of gin sitting on the kitchen bench. Punch a punchbag, run around the house screaming, listen to some heavy metal -- or do all three simultaneously -- whatever it takes just get the energy up for one last push this evening. Everyone gets through these exams eventually -- but only if they actually sit them! So go for it!

Thank you for the support and advice to all the above!

Joanneom

Hi there,

Im literally completely overwhelmed with Equity.

In relation to Injunctions, does anyone know if Marvea came up last sitting. Looking to leave it out and crack on with another topic- just don't want to completely ruin my injunctions question. Would it be foolish to omit it completely?


Thanks

bigtophat13

Joanneom wrote: »

Hi there,

Im literally completely overwhelmed with Equity.

In relation to Injunctions, does anyone know if Marvea came up last sitting. Looking to leave it out and crack on with another topic- just don't want to completely ruin my injunctions question. Would it be foolish to omit it completely?


Thanks

It came up last sitting and I'm leaving it out too, I saw a grid someone had going back about 15 or so sittings and it repeated once.