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

Joanneom

Hi there,

Just doing company and trying to cut down on topics. Can anyone tell me out of Liquidation, Examinership and Receivership what I can leave out?

Thank you!

holliek

Joanneom wrote: »

Hi there,

Just doing company and trying to cut down on topics. Can anyone tell me out of Liquidation, Examinership and Receivership what I can leave out?

Thank you!

As far as I know examinership rarely comes up

frankiejoepat

Does the Companies Act have to be the most recent version(2017).... I have the bloomsbury ed from just before the revision...

lawless11

frankiejoepat wrote: »

Does the Companies Act have to be the most recent version(2017).... I have the bloomsbury ed from just before the revision...

No you're grand with the previous version.


Anyone can really differentiate handling (s.17) and possession of stolen property (S.18)? For me it's (almost) the same? How do you separate the two?

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

No you're grand with the previous version.


Anyone can really differentiate handling (s.17) and possession of stolen property (S.18)? For me it's (almost) the same? How do you separate the two?

They can be hard to differentiate and in any question where they come up you'll likely mention both, but handling you never actually need to physically "handle" it but rather arrange for the sale of the goods or movement (there are 26 ways listed). For possession it's actually being in physical possession of it where you knew or should have known they were stolen.

Also of note is that you can never be charged with "handling" if you are the person who actually stole it.

TomRed3

I have pretty extensive sample answers for Company, Equity and Criminal if anyone would like to do some swapsies. I'm doing Constitutional, EU, Contract and Tort this time round so would appreciate any sample answers for those subjects. Just drop me a pm.

b.anna

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for some notes on SAP for company. Would anyone be williing to share or swap ?

sapphire309

In terms of highlighting legislation, can you highlight just certain words in a provision?

So in Art. 2 TEU : The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

… … can you just highlight the words "Human dignity", "equality", "non-discrimination", "belonging to minorities" - or would that be disallowed?

lawless11

sapphire309 wrote: »

In terms of highlighting legislation, can you highlight just certain words in a provision?

So in Art. 2 TEU : The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

… … can you just highlight the words "Human dignity", "equality", "non-discrimination", "belonging to minorities" - or would that be disallowed?

Yes you can of course . Just don't highlight like letters to make another word, that sort of thing close to cheating. Just words are completely fine.

RuairiPollins1

Hi there!

I have grids for Company and Equity
Would really appreciate any grids in Tort, EU and Contract. We can do swaps.

Cheers.

decco201

Looking for reassurance, it’s a few sittings since I’ve done an exam, only doing tort. Have notes for topics I’m covering done, I’ve this weekend, next weekend, thurs and fri night week and mom- wed evenings after work. I’m repeating this one, please tell me that’s enough time

I have Tort grid for anyone looking, on your email

Freckley201

decco201 wrote: »

Looking for reassurance, it’s a few sittings since I’ve done an exam, only doing tort. Have notes for topics I’m covering done, I’ve this weekend, next weekend, thurs and fri night week and mom- wed evenings after work. I’m repeating this one, please tell me that’s enough time

I have Tort grid for anyone looking, on your email

If you already have your notes done that's tons of time! Because I'm sitting others, I'm only getting 2-3 days per topic after doing up my notes.

z6vm1dobfnca3x

bigtophat13 wrote: »

https://www.citycolleges.ie/uncategorized/fe1-night-before-notes/ the above person was correct, they're not loading and tort is not up!

Cheers.

And yep - none of those are loading for me either.

djsilver17

What were the topics covered in the oct 2018 sitting of Criminal (looking to update my grid)?

Vegetarian2017

Vegetarian2017 wrote:

Equity I am covering maxims All injunctions All trusts Specific performance tracing Rectification

Vegetarian2017 wrote:

I am leaving out: recission estoppal Is this ok? Or are the left out topics mixed alot. Literally first time looking at equity in years have no course notes etc so headless chicken approach.

hi anyone covering same above?

supersaint3

decco201 wrote: »

Looking for reassurance, it’s a few sittings since I’ve done an exam, only doing tort. Have notes for topics I’m covering done, I’ve this weekend, next weekend, thurs and fri night week and mom- wed evenings after work. I’m repeating this one, please tell me that’s enough time

I have Tort grid for anyone looking, on your email

Decco, what topics are you covering? I'm in same boat as you trying to cut them down to the bare minimum, just do an attempt at passing by prediction...

Pyggg

decco201 wrote: »

Looking for reassurance, it’s a few sittings since I’ve done an exam, only doing tort. Have notes for topics I’m covering done, I’ve this weekend, next weekend, thurs and fri night week and mom- wed evenings after work. I’m repeating this one, please tell me that’s enough time

I have Tort grid for anyone looking, on your email

Imagine being in that situation for 5 subjects
You'll be more than fine

z6vm1dobfnca3x

Currently doing a question from a past paper which involves dangerous driving causing death.

Dangerous driving causing death (S.53 Road Traffic Act, 1961) is not on the FE-1 syllabus as far as I can see.

Am I right in saying then that the appropriate offence to apply here is vehicular manslaughter instead?

lisac223

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Currently doing a question from a past paper which involves dangerous driving causing death.

Dangerous driving causing death (S.53 Road Traffic Act, 1961) is not on the FE-1 syllabus as far as I can see.

Am I right in saying then that the appropriate offence to apply here is vehicular manslaughter instead?

We covered s(53) in our course and s(53)(2) dealing with dangerous driving causing death. The penalties are the same for manslaughter with a mandatory disqualification for min 4 years so I think you're better off mentioning the RTA.

bigtophat13

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Currently doing a question from a past paper which involves dangerous driving causing death.

Dangerous driving causing death (S.53 Road Traffic Act, 1961) is not on the FE-1 syllabus as far as I can see.

Am I right in saying then that the appropriate offence to apply here is vehicular manslaughter instead?

lisac223 wrote: »

We covered s(53) in our course and s(53)(2) dealing with dangerous driving causing death. The penalties are the same for manslaughter with a mandatory disqualification for min 4 years so I think you're better off mentioning the RTA.

In one of his papers he specifically says they accepted both. So show off and tell him either will apply.

nimcdona

bigtophat13 wrote: »

In one of his papers he specifically says they accepted both. So show off and tell him either will apply.

My manual compares them and says that the standard of negligence required to secure a conviction for dangerous driving is less than that required to secure a conviction for manslaughter, so would agree with discussing them both

bigtophat13

nimcdona wrote: »

My manual compares them and says that the standard of negligence required to secure a conviction for dangerous driving is less than that required to secure a conviction for manslaughter, so would agree with discussing them both

You're dead right because I remember a case where it was suggested (AG v O'Brien) that the level of negligence for DD was lower and I saw some commentary around it that they would go for the lower bar if seeking a conviction. Could be a good way to show nuance - "They may struggle to reach the required level of negligence for Manslaughter, however DD causing death would be easier to achieve...."

iamanengine

Could anyone shed some light on the principles in Kelly v Hennessy in relation to Nervous Shock?

In some places it says there are 5 principles but in the Independent manual it says they are 6 and are worded very differently?

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Could anyone shed some light on the principles in Kelly v Hennessy in relation to Nervous Shock?

In some places it says there are 5 principles but in the Independent manual it says they are 6 and are worded very differently?

Could be mixing it up with Mullally v Bus Eireann which was the following 5:

- Exposure to trauma outside normal human experience
- Reexperiencing it (through dreams / thoughts)
- Avoiding stimuli which brought it back up and having feelings like impending doom
-Disturbance, anger or hyper vigilence
- Duration of at least a month.

Then Kelly v Hennessy was 7 criteria as per my manual:

- Recognised Illness
- Shock induced
- Caused by D
- Rforeseable could cause psych injury
- Illness from perception of actual injury to oneself or anor. (where Devlin fell down)
- IF from aftermath need a close personal connection with Victim
- No pub policy limits where show sufficient prox and RF and fulfilled above.


Hope this is some help!

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Could be mixing it up with Mullally v Bus Eireann which was the following 5:

- Exposure to trauma outside normal human experience
- Reexperiencing it (through dreams / thoughts)
- Avoiding stimuli which brought it back up and having feelings like impending doom
-Disturbance, anger or hyper vigilence
- Duration of at least a month.

Then Kelly v Hennessy was 7 criteria as per my manual:

- Recognised Illness
- Shock induced
- Caused by D
- Rforeseable could cause psych injury
- Illness from perception of actual injury to oneself or anor. (where Devlin fell down)
- IF from aftermath need a close personal connection with Victim
- No pub policy limits where show sufficient prox and RF and fulfilled above.


Hope this is some help!

Cheers that's perfect, that was wrecking my head!

Breacnua

bigtophat13 wrote: »

In one of his papers he specifically says they accepted both. So show off and tell him either will apply.

i think with casey laws this is one to watch out for

Breacnua

bigtophat13 wrote: »

In one of his papers he specifically says they accepted both. So show off and tell him either will apply.

what paper did it come up can i ask ?

thanks

bigtophat13

Breacnua wrote: »

i think with casey laws this is one to watch out for

Breacnua wrote: »

what paper did it come up can i ask ?

thanks

What do you mean exactly? As in show off the distinction with case law?

Spring '17 Q6 I think, either Q5 or 6. A crazy question where they commit every offence under the sun. Assault, robbery, theft of a vehicle, endangerment, dangerous driving causing death / manslaughter with a mix of accomplice issues and duress and infancy as defences.

Dliodoir2021

Just finished work for a few weeks R&R (aka Reading Room @ NUIG). Anyone else?

TORT
For duty of care, nervous shock, pure economic loss etc, is it strictly necessary to know the English tests in detail??

Gunslinger92

For company, do people think that leaving out retention of title clauses and charges over book debts is safe enough, as they came up last sitting?