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

jazzypatty89

Does anyone happen to have an up to date company grid and/or the Oct 2018 Examiners report for Company?

Many thanks

I have plenty to trade!!

Leraf

jazzypatty89 wrote: »

Does anyone happen to have an up to date company grid and/or the Oct 2018 Examiners report for Company?

Many thanks

I have plenty to trade!!

I have the Report. You can PM your email and I will send it on

z6vm1dobfnca3x

JCormac wrote: »

There's a part of Adverse possession (Property Law) that I just can't wrap my head around.

It's when the land owner has a future intended use for the land and the squatter knows of this intended use and does something with the land that's against the landowners future use, which then strengthens the case in favor of the Squatter - [The Leigh Principle I think]

Basically, am I right in thinking this is a sub requirement within the requirement for Dispossession?

If so, [Leigh v Jack] set out the principle which was followed in [Cork County Council v Lynch] but then in [Durack Manufacturing] the opposite conclusion was reached where it was not necessary that the squatters use of the land does not have to be inconsistent with the future use of landowners land. Durack was then backed up by a further case.

So, in short, does the Leigh Principle have to apply for a case of Adverse Possession to succeed? Because there are conflicting opinions in the courts about it and I have no idea.


If anyone is able to make sense out the above I'd be eternally grateful for some clarity on the courts interpretation of the Leigh Principle!

In short, it remains to be seen which case is more persuasive between Leigh v Jack and Durack Manufacturing. It seems that we need a seminal case to settle this debate.

While Leigh v Jack focused on future intended use of the land as being the most important factor, in Durack Manufacturing the High Court placed importance on the intention of the squatter and not the intended future use of the P.

However, the future intended use of the property might still be relevant if the alleged squatter knew of it and as a result, intended to possess the land in the interim period only (lacking animus possidendi).

Hope this makes sense and please correct me if I am wrong!

bigtophat13

lisac223 wrote: »

Does anyone know if aggravated burglary a strict liability offence? So if the question states a weapon was brought “for protection” is this irrelevant? I asked my criminal lecturer but she didn't respond!

Also, would anyone have a sample answer for the short question on the influence of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004? My manual is all over the place on this section so I would be very grateful thank you!

I had never even considered whether it was SL and the absence of intentionally or recklessly would kind of suggest it is, but I wouldn't even comment on whether it's a strict liability offence in that question. I would just go about applying it to the facts and the fact that the law says if you bring the weapon in and it meets the weapon criteria you're guilty. You could say how it's irrelevant whether it's for use or not because it's viewed from the victim's perspective. It's so much higher an offence because you're going into someone's home, terrorising them and on top of that making them fear for their life. In the case of R v Bentham he pretended to have a gun through his pocket and it was considered aggravated so focus on the victim.

I'd just be inclined to avoid it as it would look bad to get it wrong and could make him question your knowledge/understanding.

Nothing for the Residential Properties one sorry.

bigtophat13

JCormac wrote: »

There's a part of Adverse possession (Property Law) that I just can't wrap my head around.

It's when the land owner has a future intended use for the land and the squatter knows of this intended use and does something with the land that's against the landowners future use, which then strengthens the case in favor of the Squatter - [The Leigh Principle I think]

Basically, am I right in thinking this is a sub requirement within the requirement for Dispossession?

If so, [Leigh v Jack] set out the principle which was followed in [Cork County Council v Lynch] but then in [Durack Manufacturing] the opposite conclusion was reached where it was not necessary that the squatters use of the land does not have to be inconsistent with the future use of landowners land. Durack was then backed up by a further case.

So, in short, does the Leigh Principle have to apply for a case of Adverse Possession to succeed? Because there are conflicting opinions in the courts about it and I have no idea.


If anyone is able to make sense out the above I'd be eternally grateful for some clarity on the courts interpretation of the Leigh Principle!

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

In short, it remains to be seen which case is more persuasive between Leigh v Jack and Durack Manufacturing. It seems that we need a seminal case to settle this debate.

While Leigh v Jack focused on future intended use of the land as being the most important factor, in Durack Manufacturing the High Court placed importance on the intention of the squatter and not the intended future use of the P.

However, the future intended use of the property might still be relevant if the alleged squatter knew of it and as a result, intended to possess the land in the interim period only (lacking animus possidendi).

Hope this makes sense and please correct me if I am wrong!

This is bang on. In the Leigh case they put a lot of emphasis on the owner's state of mind. This was followed in Cork Corporation v Lynch (but commentators think there was probably sympathy for the corporation because of their semi-state capacity). Durack was 2 years later and said it shouldn't be considered as the mind of the individual is what you should focus on. Uk have gone away from it totally in Buckinghamshire Coco v Moran and then confirmed in Pye v UK.

Woods noted that they referred to it in Dundalk UDC v Conway but it was far from the centre of the case as they decided on other basis and in Feehan v Leamy they referenced it again noting that Durack was the best consideration but again it wasn't at the core of the decision. It was suggested that going back towards Leigh could be good in order to quell some of the human rights concerns when they were brewing in Pye but after the ECHR said it was no issue that's kind of moot now. Woods thinks its convoluted and at odds with the whole doctrine to look at it from the owners point of view but as said above if the squatter knows that the owner intends to do X and intentionally acts in such a way to not interfere with X being carried out in the future the court would consider that.

Freckley201

lawless11 wrote: »

My letter arrived. Hahah. Oh well, two weeks to learn it all! :pac:

I haven't got mine yet, has everyone got theirs by now? I got the email alright when I paid.

iamanengine

JCormac wrote: »

There's a part of Adverse possession (Property Law) that I just can't wrap my head around.

It's when the land owner has a future intended use for the land and the squatter knows of this intended use and does something with the land that's against the landowners future use, which then strengthens the case in favor of the Squatter - [The Leigh Principle I think]

Basically, am I right in thinking this is a sub requirement within the requirement for Dispossession?

If so, [Leigh v Jack] set out the principle which was followed in [Cork County Council v Lynch] but then in [Durack Manufacturing] the opposite conclusion was reached where it was not necessary that the squatters use of the land does not have to be inconsistent with the future use of landowners land. Durack was then backed up by a further case.

So, in short, does the Leigh Principle have to apply for a case of Adverse Possession to succeed? Because there are conflicting opinions in the courts about it and I have no idea.


If anyone is able to make sense out the above I'd be eternally grateful for some clarity on the courts interpretation of the Leigh Principle!

I think it's been answered but I'll add my two cents. While we don't have a SC case on the matter:

Dunne v Iarnroid Eireann - Clarke said he preferred the reasoning in Durack. HC case.

JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham - HOL overturned there own decision in Leigh, which no doubt would be persuasive in Ireland.

So basically, Durack is the current test. Although you can mention the law isn't fully clear it is likely that Durack is the test. Definitely still mention Leigh.

Supermax1988

Freckley201 wrote: »

I haven't got mine yet, has everyone got theirs by now? I got the email alright when I paid.

I only got my letter in the post this morning. It will probably be waiting for you when you get home today or tomorrow!

lisac223

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I had never even considered whether it was SL and the absence of intentionally or recklessly would kind of suggest it is, but I wouldn't even comment on whether it's a strict liability offence in that question. I would just go about applying it to the facts and the fact that the law says if you bring the weapon in and it meets the weapon criteria you're guilty. You could say how it's irrelevant whether it's for use or not because it's viewed from the victim's perspective. It's so much higher an offence because you're going into someone's home, terrorising them and on top of that making them fear for their life. In the case of R v Bentham he pretended to have a gun through his pocket and it was considered aggravated so focus on the victim.

I'd just be inclined to avoid it as it would look bad to get it wrong and could make him question your knowledge/understanding.

Nothing for the Residential Properties one sorry.

Brilliant that clears up the criminal question thank you!

Supreme!Fox

Does anyone know what particular topic/chapter SAP falls under for Company law/what exam papers it has been asked in? I hear of a lot of people studying it but can't see a lot of notes on it in the manual.

Freckley201

Anyone covering detinue and conversion in Tort? I don't have anything on it in my manual but might be new?

nimcdona

Does anyone have any advice on what defences in criminal are of the most importance?

I'll have an idea of them all but just for time to focus on the more important ones

z6vm1dobfnca3x

nimcdona wrote: »

Does anyone have any advice on what defences in criminal are of the most importance?

I'll have an idea of them all but just for time to focus on the more important ones

Based off of trends, I'm going to learn all of them in some detail aside from unconstitutionality, necessity, mistake and infancy.

All of the above have only appeared once/twice in the last 17 sittings.

iamanengine

nimcdona wrote: »

Does anyone have any advice on what defences in criminal are of the most importance?

I'll have an idea of them all but just for time to focus on the more important ones

Provocation, Lawful Use of Force, Insanity, Intoxication, Duress are the big'uns. Know a couple lines/1 or 2 cases on the rest

bigtophat13

nimcdona wrote: »

Does anyone have any advice on what defences in criminal are of the most importance?

I'll have an idea of them all but just for time to focus on the more important ones

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Based off of trends, I'm going to learn all of them in some detail aside from unconstitutionality, necessity, mistake and infancy.

All of the above have only appeared once/twice in the last 17 sittings.

Because he mixes so much it's difficult, but in rough order I'd Say:

In Excellent Detail as they're nearly always up: Insanity (Diminished responsibility essay recently) , Provocation (has been an essay recently), Intoxication, Duress

Less: Self Defence (it might be mixed into a manslaughter question but he seems to prefer provocation and it's usually more relevant), Necessity (just know that in Dudley and Another they ate the poor cabin boy if you have to answer it and in another case they had to separate conjoined twins which killed one and you're set) and Infancy (just know the little bit of legislation - it's one section I can't think of right now) and that U14 most crimes aren't available but 10-12 allows for rape, murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and s4 sexual assault.

Not at all: I'm not looking at mistake or unconstitutionality but knowledge of CC v Ireland could cover that

z6vm1dobfnca3x

Would anyone be willing to send me an updated set of notes for sexual offences?

Ideally a summary of the legislation.

I'm getting confused between my own notes, my manual and the changes brought about by the The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.

I have grids, past papers, sample answers etc for criminal / equity / property to give in return.

LawGirl3434

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Would anyone be willing to send me an updated set of notes for sexual offences?

Ideally a summary of the legislation.

I'm getting confused between my own notes, my manual and the changes brought about by the The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.

I have grids, past papers, sample answers etc for criminal / equity / property to give in return.

This is confusing me a bit too - all I have for the 2017 act is it gives a definition of consent, and then all the new crimes with children. Otherwise still using 1981 and 1990 acts

iamanengine

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Would anyone be willing to send me an updated set of notes for sexual offences?

Ideally a summary of the legislation.

I'm getting confused between my own notes, my manual and the changes brought about by the The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.

I have grids, past papers, sample answers etc for criminal / equity / property to give in return.

I think all you need is:
S.42: Definition of consent
Ss.20-24: Updates law for disabled persons, repeals S.5 CLSOA 2003
Ss.15-17 replaces Ss.1-3 CLSOA 2006 (Person of authority, sexual act with child under 15, sexual act with child under 17)
Ss.3-14 - Grooming and Child Pornography Offences

I don't have proper notes done yet on it!

LawGirl3434

iamanengine wrote: »

I think all you need is in terms of CLSOA 2017 is:

Ss.3-14 - Grooming and Child Pornography Offences
Ss.15-17 replaces Ss.1-3 CLSOA 2006 (Person of authority, sexual act with child under 15, sexual act with child under 17)
Ss.20-24: Updates law for disabled persons, repeals S.5 CLSOA 2003
S.42: Definition of consent.

Thank you for writing all that out! Yeah thats all I have for it - and a very brief bit of academic commentary in case it crops up as an essay

iamanengine

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Thank you for writing all that out! Yeah thats all I have for it - and a very brief bit of academic commentary in case it crops up as an essay

No worries, I'm kind of teaching myself by helping people out so it's in my own interests lol

nimcdona

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Would anyone be willing to send me an updated set of notes for sexual offences?

Ideally a summary of the legislation.

I'm getting confused between my own notes, my manual and the changes brought about by the The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.

I have grids, past papers, sample answers etc for criminal / equity / property to give in return.

If you want to send me your email there, I'll send notes on to you

nimcdona

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Because he mixes so much it's difficult, but in rough order I'd Say:

In Excellent Detail as they're nearly always up: Insanity (Diminished responsibility essay recently) , Provocation (has been an essay recently), Intoxication, Duress

Less: Self Defence (it might be mixed into a manslaughter question but he seems to prefer provocation and it's usually more relevant), Necessity (just know that in Dudley and Another they ate the poor cabin boy if you have to answer it and in another case they had to separate conjoined twins which killed one and you're set) and Infancy (just know the little bit of legislation - it's one section I can't think of right now) and that U14 most crimes aren't available but 10-12 allows for rape, murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and s4 sexual assault.

Not at all: I'm not looking at mistake or unconstitutionality but knowledge of CC v Ireland could cover that

Perfect, appreciate your help thank you

Freckley201

Hey,

Anyone have a tort sample answer for negligence where in control over others, e.g. parents, drivers? (For example March 2018-Q1 or Oct 2015 - Q1). My manual is not super clear on vicarious liability other than in relation to employers.

Can trade other answers/grids.

Thanks!

iamanengine

Freckley201 wrote: »

Hey,

Anyone have a tort sample answer for negligence where in control over others, e.g. parents, drivers? (For example March 2018-Q1 or Oct 2015 - Q1). My manual is not super clear on vicarious liability other than in relation to employers.

Can trade other answers/grids.

Thanks!

Had a look at my notes, don't have a sample answer, but...

Oct 2015 - I think it's DOC to third parties. Sounds familiar to Doody v Clarke (Driver wasn't liable where someone threw an egg out the car window at a pedestrian, I think). You'd then talk about control, Dorset Yacht Co v Home Office (borstal boys damaged P's yacht, officers owed owner DOC) and Breslan and Corcoran v MIBI (Left his keys on the car and it got stolen then crashed, not reasonably foreseeable). Then talk about Assumption of Responsibility (HSE v Ennis, maybe? Not sure if this is relevant) and finally Negligent Care of Children (Curly v Mannion etc). And last note, Vicarious Liability can extend to parent/child relationship - Moynihan v Moynihan

I'd say Oct 2018 is similar story! Hope that is of some help

JCormac

bigtophat13 wrote: »

This is bang on. In the Leigh case they put a lot of emphasis on the owner's state of mind. This was followed in Cork Corporation v Lynch (but commentators think there was probably sympathy for the corporation because of their semi-state capacity). Durack was 2 years later and said it shouldn't be considered as the mind of the individual is what you should focus on. Uk have gone away from it totally in Buckinghamshire Coco v Moran and then confirmed in Pye v UK.

Woods noted that they referred to it in Dundalk UDC v Conway but it was far from the centre of the case as they decided on other basis and in Feehan v Leamy they referenced it again noting that Durack was the best consideration but again it wasn't at the core of the decision. It was suggested that going back towards Leigh could be good in order to quell some of the human rights concerns when they were brewing in Pye but after the ECHR said it was no issue that's kind of moot now. Woods thinks its convoluted and at odds with the whole doctrine to look at it from the owners point of view but as said above if the squatter knows that the owner intends to do X and intentionally acts in such a way to not interfere with X being carried out in the future the court would consider that.

iamanengine wrote: »

I think it's been answered but I'll add my two cents. While we don't have a SC case on the matter:

Dunne v Iarnroid Eireann - Clarke said he preferred the reasoning in Durack. HC case.

JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham - HOL overturned there own decision in Leigh, which no doubt would be persuasive in Ireland.

So basically, Durack is the current test. Although you can mention the law isn't fully clear it is likely that Durack is the test. Definitely still mention Leigh.

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

In short, it remains to be seen which case is more persuasive between Leigh v Jack and Durack Manufacturing. It seems that we need a seminal case to settle this debate.

While Leigh v Jack focused on future intended use of the land as being the most important factor, in Durack Manufacturing the High Court placed importance on the intention of the squatter and not the intended future use of the P.

However, the future intended use of the property might still be relevant if the alleged squatter knew of it and as a result, intended to possess the land in the interim period only (lacking animus possidendi).

Hope this makes sense and please correct me if I am wrong!

Thanks so much, lads. Makes perfect sense now. Really appreciate it!

AJM95

Anyone sitting three exams in a row (company,criminal & property), just wondering how you may be managing time or any tips on how to cram for each the week of?

bigtophat13

AJM95 wrote: »

Anyone sitting three exams in a row (company,criminal & property), just wondering how you may be managing time or any tips on how to cram for each the week of?

Criminal Property and Constitutional here. Had 2 in a row the last set and I was shattered for the second as I was too stressed to sleep much both nights, only advice I have is to look after yourself physically in the run up. Sadly exercise is gone out the window since last week for me but if you've time get in something, it helps a lot. Also eat clean and drink tonnes of water and you'll feel better for it. Sounds obvious but it really is true.

The week of try sleep as decently as you can and the nights before just remember you get to a point of diminishing returns where you're not learning any more and you're acting to the detriment of your brain power and memory tomorrow!

PuffleHuffLyra

Would anyone be willing to share an updated Contract exam grid or send a pdf of the 2018 October paper?

z6vm1dobfnca3x

PuffleHuffLyra wrote: »

Would anyone be willing to share an updated Contract exam grid or send a pdf of the 2018 October paper?

I don't have a grid but message me your email address and I will send you the paper.

nailforhammer

Does anyone have any experience of trying to use legislative sources that have a small amount of writing on them? I've borrowed a friend's Companies Act and I'm worried it'll get rejected.

There's only a small amount of writing such as "NB" or "Important" on total of 10 pages max in the whole book. There's nothing like case law or explanations or anything. If I Tipp-Exed them out would they care or even notice? How thorough do they search it?