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

Joanneom

bigtophat13 wrote: »

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.

Thanks you! Im so glad I'm not the only one. Takes taken some pressure off. Fingerscrossed we don't get an unlucky repeat!

Tony_TwoLegs

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

If I were you I'd figure out the banker topics. There's always a couple. Go over them. Pick 5 or so 'easy' subjects. Bullet point them.
ONLY STUDY THESE LOT then between now and tomorrow

bigtophat13

As a last minute topic, estoppel or secret trusts with joint bank accounts?

ArthurDayne

bigtophat13 wrote: »

As a last minute topic, estoppel or secret trusts with joint bank accounts?

I'm rolling with secret trusts & joint bank accounts

Teamhrach

I know specific performance and charitable trusts (incl cy pres and non-char) are prob bankers this sitting but haven’t looked at my prep in a few weeks for them so they’d be my last resorts as I think I know other topics very well.
So, wasting a few minutes of my time and yours (thank you) wondering which is the easiest to pick up marks...?
Possibly a completely pointless exercise here by me!

lawless11

Has knowing receipt come up often, or is it more so knowing assistance/accessory liability?

If yes, what's the Irish position on it after Akindele? I have the case O'Donnell v BOI in my notes saying that the threshold seems lower than Akindele's unconscionability test but not much detail. Thanks.

bigtophat13

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I'm rolling with secret trusts & joint bank accounts

Cheers, secret trusts is due a run I do suppose.

bigtophat13

Teamhrach wrote: »

I know specific performance and charitable trusts (incl cy pres and non-char) are prob bankers this sitting but haven’t looked at my prep in a few weeks for them so they’d be my last resorts as I think I know other topics very well.
So, wasting a few minutes of my time and yours (thank you) wondering which is the easiest to pick up marks...?
Possibly a completely pointless exercise here by me!

I think overall specific performance is more formulaic, but if you're looking for very little effort for possible gains then cy pres with emphasis on initial and subsequent failure could be a good shout. 15 cases or so max in the area between initial failure, subsequent failure and how to apply in case of cy pres.

ArthurDayne

lawless11 wrote: »

Has knowing receipt come up often, or is it more so knowing assistance/accessory liability?

If yes, what's the Irish position on it after Akindele? I have the case O'Donnell v BOI in my notes saying that the threshold seems lower than Akindele's unconscionability test but not much detail. Thanks.

The Irish courts continue with a knowledge based test whereas after Akindele the English courts have moved towards something which could be described as unconscientious receipt -- i.e. as you say, injecting the unconscionability into the equation.

But in Entoglen the irish courts restated their knowledge-based test, and that actual and constructive notice of the breach of trust were both sufficient. Harlequin Property v O'Halloran (a recent case) the court pointed out that the Irish threshold for finding someone liable as a constructive trustee in this area of the law was 'significantly lower' than the English one.

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

Has knowing receipt come up often, or is it more so knowing assistance/accessory liability?

If yes, what's the Irish position on it after Akindele? I have the case O'Donnell v BOI in my notes saying that the threshold seems lower than Akindele's unconscionability test but not much detail. Thanks.

Courts said that the level in Ireland was constructive knowledge not actual while England debated over it a little in 2 cases (I think Re Belfort and Re Montacu) so because of that in Harlequin we kept the old test of knowledge, albeit constructive knowledge.

lawless11

Cheers to you both. Makes sense now ehe.

ArthurDayne

Bear in mind this is the only exam I'm sitting so don't freak out anyone. For anyone else who maybe is only sitting this one --- second opinion need-- I'm skimming over Secret Trustees tonight and the rest of the below I have covered. Surely . . . .surely ....I can safely abandon sitting up tonight to cover Mareva???

Trustees
Quia Timet / Interlocutory
Constructive Trusts
Rectification
Purpose Trusts (charitable/cy pres)
Specific Performance
Undue Influence
Tracing
Three Certainties (leaving out the rest of that chapter)
Resulting Trusts (mainly Advancement, skimming the others)

bigtophat13

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Bear in mind this is the only exam I'm sitting so don't freak out anyone. For anyone else who maybe is only sitting this one --- second opinion need-- I'm skimming over Secret Trustees tonight and the rest of the below I have covered. Surely . . . .surely ....I can safely abandon sitting up tonight to cover Mareva???

Trustees
Quia Timet / Interlocutory
Constructive Trusts
Rectification
Purpose Trusts (charitable/cy pres)
Specific Performance
Undue Influence
Tracing
Three Certainties (leaving out the rest of that chapter)
Resulting Trusts (mainly Advancement, skimming the others)

I would be shocked and appalled if you were not covered, I'm not doing mareva, I've no Resulting trusts as of yet and my rectification is only so much as to cover a question with specific performance, as a result of that I will be sitting up, but I don't think you need to!

yournerd

I’m going to ask to view my script if I don’t pass. With the whole GDPR thing and the recent case law it would be unlawful for them to refuse

ArthurDayne

Anyone know if they'll accept a PPS Card as identification (has photo and signature). Having issues locating my passport here . . . . .

Supermax1988

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Anyone know if they'll accept a PPS Card as identification (has photo and signature). Having issues locating my passport here . . . . .

Haven't seen it done before.myself but it's photo ID. Considering they want to make it mandatory for everyone to have one to apply for a passport it would be a bit ridiculous if they refused you!

Natalie_06

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Haven't seen it done before.myself but it's photo ID. Considering they want to make it mandatory for everyone to have one to apply for a passport it would be a bit ridiculous if they refused you!

They haven't checked my ID once yet... they just get me to sign my name...

ArthurDayne

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Haven't seen it done before.myself but it's photo ID. Considering they want to make it mandatory for everyone to have one to apply for a passport it would be a bit ridiculous if they refused you!

Jaysus I hope so. Does anyone else have experience of this? Of all bloody things. . .

lawless11

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Jaysus I hope so. Does anyone else have experience of this? Of all bloody things. . .

Honestly I don't think they care much. For my first I was late, the lady then passed me by and asked me if I had ID, I said yes, ready to fetch for it in my pocket, but then she was like - you're grand, resume to your exam (she must have taken pity on me).

Does rectification very often comes together with SP? Does SP come up on its own? Kind of thinking of passing rectification...

I want to have covered (ideally, cause rn I still have over half to re-read & try and make stick as much as possible):
-Trustees
-QT & Interlocutory
-Charitable/non-charitable trusts/cy-près
-Tracing
-Constructive Trusts
-3 certainties
-Maxims as a prepared Q
-UI
-Strong v Bird + DMC
-RT
-Rescission
-SP

holliek

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Anyone know if they'll accept a PPS Card as identification (has photo and signature). Having issues locating my passport here . . . . .

I'm nearly certain I saw someone bringing one into the contract exam

Freckley201

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Anyone know if they'll accept a PPS Card as identification (has photo and signature). Having issues locating my passport here . . . . .

I've just been using my drivers licence and there's been no issue

bigtophat13

Quick question regarding injunctions (again) , Is redland bricks v morris a case for MII or QT?

scooby321

Reading a Griffith sample answer to Q.3 October 2014 on Quia Timet and it says Szabo held that:

"Campus Oil principles should not be applied as it is distaseftul to balance the convenience of D being able to carry on his benefit with the potential impact it may have on the health of P... the matter has not been considered since so this judgment is good law. Therefore there is no need to apply the campus oil principles."

I thought Campus oil principles apply to prohibitory QTs and Lingam applies to mandatory QTs so you would have to go through the relevant test in the exam q? Can someone please clarify this for me

Freckley201

scooby321 wrote: »

Reading a Griffith sample answer to Q.3 October 2014 on Quia Timet and it says Szabo held that:

"Campus Oil principles should not be applied as it is distaseftul to balance the convenience of D being able to carry on his benefit with the potential impact it may have on the health of P... the matter has not been considered since so this judgment is good law. Therefore there is no need to apply the campus oil principles."

I thought Campus oil principles apply to prohibitory QTs and Lingam applies to mandatory QTs so you would have to go through the relevant test in the exam q? Can someone please clarify this for me

Campus Oil principles do apply to QT injunctions, in SZABO the judge said there was something distasteful in balancing the convenience against the alleged dangers to the life and health of the plaintiff but they would have been met in any case. Its generally accepted that the principles do apply to QT

scooby321

Freckley201 wrote: »

Campus Oil principles do apply to QT injunctions, in SZABO the judge said there was something distasteful in balancing the convenience against the alleged dangers to the life and health of the plaintiff but they would have been met in any case. Its generally accepted that the principles do apply to QT

Thank you! So even if Szabo didn't apply them just in that case, the sample answer should have gone through them regardless and we should in the exam?

Thanks very much!

bigtophat13

scooby321 wrote: »

Thank you! So even if Szabo didn't apply them just in that case, the sample answer should have gone through them regardless and we should in the exam?

Thanks very much!

National Bank of Ireland v RTE was the same year and they did apply C.Oil

Roisin Phelan

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Anyone know if they'll accept a PPS Card as identification (has photo and signature). Having issues locating my passport here . . . . .

I have been using my CCJ ID card all week. Just had my pic and says legal exec on it. You should be fine. Best of luck tomorrow

bigtophat13

What maxims are people preparing? Which are easiest to fob other stuff into if you're stuck?

LawStudent2018

yournerd wrote: »

I’m going to ask to view my script if I don’t pass. With the whole GDPR thing and the recent case law it would be unlawful for them to refuse

Look out we have a lawyer in the house

scooby321

bigtophat13 wrote: »

National Bank of Ireland v RTE was the same year and they did apply C.Oil

Yeah I had that in the notes that it was decided just before Szabo. Thanks very much! The brain is not functioning after the last 4 exams!