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

bigtophat13

For Occupier's Liability in Tort, the night before notes seem to say that the same level of care is owed to everyone now, Invitees, Trespassers and Recreational users, but I was under the impression (and the way the act reads to me) that a visitor (s3) is owed a reasonable duty of care whereas Trespassers and Recreational Users are the same level - S4 - Not to harm them or be reckless towards them.

Am I reading that wrong or perhaps missing something?

LawGirl3434

bigtophat13 wrote: »

For Occupier's Liability in Tort, the night before notes seem to say that the same level of care is owed to everyone now, Invitees, Trespassers and Recreational users, but I was under the impression (and the way the act reads to me) that a visitor (s3) is owed a reasonable duty of care whereas Trespassers and Recreational Users are the same level - S4 - Not to harm them or be reckless towards them.

Am I reading that wrong or perhaps missing something?

No I think your understanding is correct - I consulted the act directly because I read different things in different notes

LawGirl3434

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I find them hard to distinguish on the real technical basis, but in problem questions they tend to phrase negligence as a single event whereas nuisance is usually continuous.

Also I always find the nuisance questions tend to have something a little peculiar about them - really honing in on the interference with enjoyment element of the topic

LawGirl3434

Would anyone have any sample answers for SOP in constituional? Going to try to understand it once and for all today

Fe1hayes

It's just general principles and like equivalence and effects which must be given to EU law to be equal to National law.

lmsc

Would any kind soul have a sample answer for the main reforms of the 2014 act for company?

BemusedKettle

Can anybody advise me whether or not finding came up at the last sitting of property?

That is one sweet ass topic, finding plus two succession questions and you're laughing

lisac223

BemusedKettle wrote: »

Can anybody advise me whether or not finding came up at the last sitting of property?

That is one sweet ass topic, finding plus two succession questions and you're laughing

It didn't come up last year but came up in March 2018 as a small one-part question re the judgment in Webb v Ireland. Before that it seemed to be always full problems back to 2009/2008 so it should hopefully make an appearance I would love a problem question on it myself!

holliek

For corporate borrowing in company I'm learning about floating and fixed charges, crystallization of floating, over book debts and retention of title clauses. Is there any other areas in the chapter worth learning/come up?

bigtophat13

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

No I think your understanding is correct - I consulted the act directly because I read different things in different notes

Thank you, was getting worried I was all turned sideways. Really bad from the night before notes contradicting themselves in the same paragraph!

LawGirl3434

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Thank you, was getting worried I was all turned sideways. Really bad from the night before notes contradicting themselves in the same paragraph!

They have breached their SOC for sure (if we can just about argue they have a DOC)

bigtophat13

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

They have breached their SOC for sure (if we can just about argue they have a DOC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realise this was a question on Negligent Misstatement!

LawGirl3434

(Excellent) tort jokes...well and truly in the FE1 cave now guys

holliek

anyone else find the property offences and non-fatal offences hard to learn for criminal? So many statutes, sections, cases, punishable sentences etc to remember

bigtophat13

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

(Excellent) tort jokes...well and truly in the FE1 cave now guys

So deep in the cave I don't think I remember how to be around real people anymore!

bigtophat13

holliek wrote: »

anyone else find the property offences and non-fatal offences hard to learn for criminal? So many statutes, sections, cases, punishable sentences etc to remember

Don't worry, everyone does, there are so many, honestly the best way is getting a list in numerical order and going down through it in a row until you can get them all. Once you do it 5 times in a row it will be night before cram level memorised I feel.

sapphire309

Company - can anybody advise me of the priority in which assets are to be distributed in the event of a winding up? My manual says something completely different to the Nutshells and I am beyond confused

Bingo157

Does anyone know whether the 2017 edition of the Bloomsbury Companies Act 2014 is permitted for the exam? The law society website says 'most recent edition'. I just noticed there is a 2018 edition that has been released. I really hope I don't need the 2018 edition!

iamanengine

What's the current position of Pure Economic Loss in Ireland?

So my understanding is:

Negligent Misstatement is clearly recognised.
Defective premises cases - Recognised in Ward McMaster
Relational economic loss - Less clear. Recognised in McShane Wholesale Fruit & Veg v Johnston Haulage. Then in Glencar they returned to being reluctant for PEL.

My notes are a mess on this topic for some reason, can't get my head around it.

Is Caparo the leading cases for the test in relation to proximity?

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

What's the current position of Pure Economic Loss in Ireland?

So my understanding is:

Negligent Misstatement is clearly recognised.
Defective premises cases - Recognised in Ward McMaster
Relational economic loss - Less clear. Recognised in McShane Wholesale Fruit & Veg v Johnston Haulage. Then in Glencar they returned to being reluctant for PEL.

My notes are a mess on this topic for some reason, can't get my head around it.

Is Caparo the leading cases for the test in relation to proximity?

Negligent Misstatement is indeed, Defective Premises is also and in Glencar Keane referred to Siney so that's interrelated between defective premises generally and housing duties of a statutory authority also (Under the Housing Act 1966 I think).

Relational Economic loss is a questionable one, allowed in McShane Veg but Glencar casts doubt over whether it would be allowed now. Other jurisdictions like Canada have allowed it. Could say it would depend on the circumstances and the overall higher bar as set in Glencar.

Glencar didn't explicitly say "Caparo is the way to go" , Keane said he felt Anns was misunderstood and then went with a very Caparo-esque definition. But then other subsequent cases - I think Wildgust for example - said that we follow Caparo. But SC confirmation would be nice.

On that point you could then say that we're trending like the English courts, for which Murphy v Brentford DC (I think thats the case) had them explicitly state that while personal injury requires justification, PEL does not always require it.

Hope that's some help!

kasey0123

Bingo157 wrote: »

Does anyone know whether the 2017 edition of the Bloomsbury Companies Act 2014 is permitted for the exam? The law society website says 'most recent edition'. I just noticed there is a 2018 edition that has been released. I really hope I don't need the 2018 edition!

I only have the 2014 act, there’s not much we really need for exam purposes from the new ones bar 2 sections of 2017 Act that changed priority in relation to floating charges and preferential creditors after the JD brian case.

The 2018 Act is just boring changes in relation to filing annual returns i don’t think it will arise anywhere really!

kasey0123

sapphire309 wrote: »

Company - can anybody advise me of the priority in which assets are to be distributed in the event of a winding up? My manual says something completely different to the Nutshells and I am beyond confused

I get from it that it’s:

Liquidators fees and costs
Preferential creidtors ( revenue,wages, any claims they have outstanding like a UD claim,etc )
Fixed charge holders/specific charge holders
Floating charges
Unsecured creditors ( people who never registered their charges)

And now a floating charge that crystallizes can never take priority over preferential creditors due to 2017 Accounting Act.

holliek

Is anyone learning about abortion for Constitutional? I'm in 2 minds as it rarely comes but not sure with all the recent changes if they could throw in an essay on it?

holliek

Bingo157 wrote: »

Does anyone know whether the 2017 edition of the Bloomsbury Companies Act 2014 is permitted for the exam? The law society website says 'most recent edition'. I just noticed there is a 2018 edition that has been released. I really hope I don't need the 2018 edition!

No the 2017 version should be fine, I'd say that's what a majority of people have (myself included)

lawless11

holliek wrote: »

Is anyone learning about abortion for Constitutional? I'm in 2 minds as it rarely comes but not sure with all the recent changes if they could throw in an essay on it?

Kind of torn on this one, because if it comes up it would be basically arguing a moot point (like historical type of going back over it). So idk if it's really so relevant to learn as a topic.

holliek

lawless11 wrote: »

Kind of torn on this one, because if it comes up it would be basically arguing a moot point (like historical type of going back over it). So idk if it's really so relevant to learn as a topic.

Yeah I feel that's the only way that it can come up.. hmm

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

Kind of torn on this one, because if it comes up it would be basically arguing a moot point (like historical type of going back over it). So idk if it's really so relevant to learn as a topic.

holliek wrote: »

Yeah I feel that's the only way that it can come up.. hmm

I'm not doing it as there's so much in Constitutional I think it would be mad and unfair to bring up a moot area especially when with the note question it's answer 5 out of 7 if it doesn't suit. That being said advice from someone who did one of the courses would be much appreciated!

user115

Hey!

Wanted to get people's thoughts on something....I signed up to do EU and Tort this sitting, I got my magic 3 last October, but I'm very behind. I have about three quarters of EU done from study over Christmas and then I had alot going on over the last while so I basically have about 3 chapters done in Tort so far, should I just not bother sitting Tort just do EU? I don't know how I would get all notes done for tort over the next week and then learn it all off in just a day and then sit and do a three hour exam...and then catch up on EU do about 3 more topics for EU and prep for exam. I feel like I would put myself under unreal pressure and may not even pass tort and might also fail EU if I don't focus enough on it. Instead I could just focus on EU for the next 3 weeks and hopefully pass it. I'v been working full time but off now til exams. Do you think it would look really bad in applications for traineeships that I didn't focus on more to get them all done as quickly as possible?

LawGirl3434

Agree with this greatly - in the syllabus they specify that they're testing areas practitioners are likely to encounter, so it really suggests a moot essay wouldn't be up. I'm cutting that, ECHR and going to only look over family.

One thing I have heard suggested is they may put up right to die instead?

bigtophat13

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Agree with this greatly - in the syllabus they specify that they're testing areas practitioners are likely to encounter, so it really suggests a moot essay wouldn't be up. I'm cutting that, ECHR and going to only look over family.

One thing I have heard suggested is they may put up right to die instead?

That's good to know that the syllabus is focusing on topical stuff.

That's a good shout but I only have 5 or 6 cases on that at a push?

Re A Ward, Fleming, Bland, Purdy v UK, Pretty v UK and thats it? What would one do with so little? It would surely have to be mixed into a problem with other issues?