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

LawGirl3434

bigtophat13 wrote: »

If you've time it wouldn't be a bad idea. I might do the same so, probably only a couple cases for each? And it would help if it's part of a problem question.

Family is crucial (and a little boring in places)

They brought up a question relating to an issue with the voting in of something else last year, so they wanted you to spin the amending the constitution info for that. Nothing to say they wouldn't bring up a pure amendment question though! But you could argue that was it being tested last exam.

I'm re-opening Constitutional today after wrapping up tort. You have my sympathy and empathy. Gonna give 2 days to Con, 2 to criminal, 1 to property and then 2 to Tort before the exam. Then I'm 4 in 5 days so no gaps really

But oh well, that's what caffeine is for!

With regards to the amending the constitution - are you referring to Q6 on the last sitting? My understanding there was that they were talking about elections and many people confused it with referendum processes. This confused me a bit as don't really have any notes on that - other than in a few of the Referendum cases judges have passed comment on the general right to democratic and fair elections. Then presumed all you could really go into it right to justice/ litigate etc. Sorry if you're talking about another Q entirely - just this has confused me for a while so said I'd jump in!

bigtophat13

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

With regards to the amending the constitution - are you referring to Q6 on the last sitting? My understanding there was that they were talking about elections and many people confused it with referendum processes. This confused me a bit as don't really have any notes on that - other than in a few of the Referendum cases judges have passed comment on the general right to democratic and fair elections. Then presumed all you could really go into it right to justice/ litigate etc. Sorry if you're talking about another Q entirely - just this has confused me for a while so said I'd jump in!

No you're dead right about the one, I'm not confident I understand it either. All I know is in the report he commented that a lot of people went with their referendum knowledge without applying how it might have been relevant to the question.

LawGirl3434

bigtophat13 wrote: »

No you're dead right about the one, I'm not confident I understand it either. All I know is in the report he commented that a lot of people went with their referendum knowledge without applying how it might have been relevant to the question.

Goodness - that seems quite harsh to me! I think elections are largely governed by statute anyway? Ugh!

iamanengine

Question about Land Registration.

My notes say that England and Wales rolled out their E-Conveyancing system in 2003 under the Land Registration Act 2002, Ireland has settled for a more traditional approach to register all land first, with a view to commencing e-conveyancing in the future.

However, I know myself that you can go on Landdirect.ie and search folios, see maps and order folios. Is this not e-Conveyancing?

bigtophat13

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Goodness - that seems quite harsh to me! I think elections are largely governed by statute anyway? Ugh!

Apologies, reading his report here, he said that it was relating to the access to justice, remedies for a finding of unconstitutionality and the standing of the client to seek a remedy. So there's the new common favourite of legal access, unconstitutionality you could apply your CC v Ireland stuff albeit in a very different context.

He then remarked (I reckon indicating that he threw some people a break where they made the best of a bad situation) that some candidates referred solely to referendum issues and made no attempt to explain how, if at all they might apply in a different context.

So I guess referendum is due then as it wasn't up last time?

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Question about Land Registration.

My notes say that England and Wales rolled out their E-Conveyancing system in 2003 under the Land Registration Act 2002, Ireland has settled for a more traditional approach to register all land first, with a view to commencing e-conveyancing in the future.

However, I know myself that you can go on Landdirect.ie and search folios, see maps and order folios. Is this not e-Conveyancing?

That's a good start on it, but full on E-Conveyancing is being able to buy and sell online and without paper as far as I understand. Law Society literally have a head of e-conveyancing implementation so they're on the way.

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

That's a good start on it, but full on E-Conveyancing is being able to buy and sell online and without paper as far as I understand. Law Society literally have a head of e-conveyancing implementation so they're on the way.

You're doing the lord's work friend.

z6vm1dobfnca3x

Would anyone be able to post the question from Criminal - Q5 - Autumn 2016 ?

I don't have that particular past paper but want to see what type of question it is.

If someone has it to send to me, that would be much appreciated also!

bigtophat13

Are people doing the relationship with the EU in constitutional law? It came up quite centrally in that last exam mixed into the first question on the family. Hoping to leave it out but I'm not confident doing so.

iamanengine

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Would anyone be able to post the question from Criminal - Q5 - Autumn 2016 ?

I don't have that particular past paper but want to see what type of question it is.

If someone has it to send to me, that would be much appreciated also!

It's on Arrest and Presumption of Innocence.

You are a solicitor. You are asked to advise your clients on the criminal
procedure issues arising in both of the following scenarios.

(i) Pat was driving in Waterford when he was stopped by Garda Cleary.
Garda Cleary searched his car and discovered a holdall bag containing a
quantity of cannabis. Pat was immediately taken to a Garda station in
Waterford where he was detained under section 4 of the Criminal Justice
Act 1984' as amended. It appears however that Pat was not expressly
informed that he was under arrest. Nor was he informed of the statutory
powers upon which the actual arrest was made. Pat wants to know if his
arrest is unlawful.

(ii) Larry was charged with offences under Safety, Health and
Welfare at Work Act 2005. He is surprised by the wording of
section 81 of the Act which provides that 'in any proceedings for
an offence under any of the relevant provisions consisting of a
failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so
far as is practicable or so far as is reasonable practicable, or to use
the best practicable means to do something, it shall be for the
accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or
not reasonable practicable to do more than was in fact done to
satisfy the duty or requirement'. Larry was under the assumption
that an accused party was under no obligation to prove anything
in a criminal trial. He asks you to explain to him the presumption
of innocence in Irish law, and how it would apply in relation to
section 81 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.

z6vm1dobfnca3x

iamanengine wrote: »

It's on Arrest and Presumption of Innocence.

You are a solicitor. You are asked to advise your clients on the criminal
procedure issues arising in both of the following scenarios.

(i) Pat was driving in Waterford when he was stopped by Garda Cleary.
Garda Cleary searched his car and discovered a holdall bag containing a
quantity of cannabis. Pat was immediately taken to a Garda station in
Waterford where he was detained under section 4 of the Criminal Justice
Act 1984' as amended. It appears however that Pat was not expressly
informed that he was under arrest. Nor was he informed of the statutory
powers upon which the actual arrest was made. Pat wants to know if his
arrest is unlawful.

(ii) Larry was charged with offences under Safety, Health and
Welfare at Work Act 2005. He is surprised by the wording of
section 81 of the Act which provides that 'in any proceedings for
an offence under any of the relevant provisions consisting of a
failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so
far as is practicable or so far as is reasonable practicable, or to use
the best practicable means to do something, it shall be for the
accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or
not reasonable practicable to do more than was in fact done to
satisfy the duty or requirement'. Larry was under the assumption
that an accused party was under no obligation to prove anything
in a criminal trial. He asks you to explain to him the presumption
of innocence in Irish law, and how it would apply in relation to
section 81 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.

Thanks a million!

Vegetarian2017

bigtophat13 wrote:

Are people doing the relationship with the EU in constitutional law? It came up quite centrally in that last exam mixed into the first question on the family. Hoping to leave it out but I'm not confident doing so.

Oh god well haven't touched family yet not sure! I might leave amending const too.

holliek

does anyone have papers with reports for criminal? Mine only go up to March 2016. Can swap material for any other subjects!!

mariealice

Any tips/predictions out there for contract? Have put too much time and energy into EU and property and have neglected contract so would be v grateful for any guidance!

BemusedKettle

Anybody have Tort sample answers that they send my way?

I have notes for constitutional, criminal, property & contract that I can hopefully use to repay.

Smiley283

Have the night before notes for equity been posted yet? Has anyone received any tips for the exam?

iamanengine

Does anyone know if Professional Negligence Q's are always Medical or do Solicitors ever come up?

Supermax1988

iamanengine wrote: »

Does anyone know if Professional Negligence Q's are always Medical or do Solicitors ever come up?

Solicitors do come up but hasn't for a while. There was a question on a financial advisor/accountant a few papers back if memory serves me which I'd say threw a lot of people.

iamanengine

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Solicitors do come up but hasn't for a while. There was a question on a financial advisor/accountant a few papers back if memory serves me which I'd say threw a lot of people.

Oh my. I don't have any cases on accountants! They really can be cruel sometimes

Edit: Just realised the Dunne principles apply across the board

bigtophat13

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Solicitors do come up but hasn't for a while. There was a question on a financial advisor/accountant a few papers back if memory serves me which I'd say threw a lot of people.

iamanengine wrote: »

Oh my. I don't have any cases on accountants! They really can be cruel sometimes

If you haven't got the cases I think it would be fine to apply the medical and legal cases to it. Standard of the body unless it's inherently defective and away you go.

If it was an accountant I'd keep an eye out for Negligent Misstatement aspects too.

Supermax1988

iamanengine wrote: »

Oh my. I don't have any cases on accountants! They really can be cruel sometimes

You won't need them! Dunne principles apply to pretty much any profession they'd throw on it and suppose you could apply some solicitor cases by analogy? Just checked it up there, it was a Tax advisor! October 2016, Q7.

bigtophat13

Have they ever asked questions on Proportional Representation and getting voted into the Dail? Or is it always just privilege asked ?

iamanengine

My prediction for the Tort exam paper, just to procrastinate a little, in no particular order:

Nuisance/Trespass to Land/Rylands
Trespass to Person
Defamation
General Negligence
Liability for Animals
Medical Negligence
Occupiers Liability
Negligent Misstatement

You can thank me after the exam

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

My prediction for the Tort exam paper, just to procrastinate a little, in no particular order:

Nuisance/Trespass to Land/Rylands
Trespass to Person
Defamation
General Negligence
Liability for Animals
Medical Negligence
Occupiers Liability
Negligent Misstatement

You can thank me after the exam

I'd take that

Dliodoir2021

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Have they ever asked questions on Proportional Representation and getting voted into the Dail? Or is it always just privilege asked ?

October 2006!
I gave away my papers etc so I don't know the exact question, something like this:

You learn the govt has called an election for jan 07; it’s proposed the constituencies will remain as the 05 election which was based on the 1998 census, despite a more recent census.

SOMETHING LIKE THIS COULD APPEAR BC CONSTITUENCY BOUNDARIES WERE CHANGED PRIOR TO THE 2016 GENERAL ELECTIONS

Answer:
Re proportional representation under Art 16; O’Donovan v AG; Murphy v McGrath.
We know the govt is supposed to review constituency boundaries every 12 years if a census has been carried out.
In O’Donovan, there was a 20% difference between the no. of people and the number of TDs; there, the crt found the State didn’t do as much as they could (in so far as was practicable) to ensure the boundaries were the same.
There’s a 9% difference in the ratio in the present scenario.
So, the court will have regard to things like well-known constituency boundaries and naturally recurring breaks in the boundaries. Also, talk about Murphy McGrath and Min for the Environment.
What happened in 2006 won’t render what’s happening in 2007 defunct bc the crts are very mindful of the SOP.
Govt will probably get off!

ameliaearhart

Does anyone know what topic came up in the last sitting of constitutional?

bigtophat13

Dliodoir2021 wrote: »

October 2006!
I gave away my papers etc so I don't know the exact question, something like this:

You learn the govt has called an election for jan 07; it’s proposed the constituencies will remain as the 05 election which was based on the 1998 census, despite a more recent census.

SOMETHING LIKE THIS COULD APPEAR BC CONSTITUENCY BOUNDARIES WERE CHANGED PRIOR TO THE 2016 GENERAL ELECTIONS

Answer:
Re proportional representation under Art 16; O’Donovan v AG; Murphy v McGrath.
We know the govt is supposed to review constituency boundaries every 12 years if a census has been carried out.
In O’Donovan, there was a 20% difference between the no. of people and the number of TDs; there, the crt found the State didn’t do as much as they could (in so far as was practicable) to ensure the boundaries were the same.
There’s a 9% difference in the ratio in the present scenario.
So, the court will have regard to things like well-known constituency boundaries and naturally recurring breaks in the boundaries. Also, talk about Murphy McGrath and Min for the Environment.
What happened in 2006 won’t render what’s happening in 2007 defunct bc the crts are very mindful of the SOP.
Govt will probably get off!

God, that would scare the hell out of me. Thank you though, because I was looking at those exact cases deciding whether to learn them or not! See while there are so few cases on it, I would still feel so bare only writing on such a mere handful. That would be 2 pages max?

iamanengine

For Occupiers Liability, do you need to know the CL principles for Activity on the Premises or do you just need to know the Act in relation to the State of the Premises.

I was looking through exam papers and I don't think Activity on the Premises has ever come up but I could be wrong

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

For Occupiers Liability, do you need to know the CL principles for Activity on the Premises or do you just need to know the Act in relation to the State of the Premises.

I was linking through exam papers and I don't think Activity on the Premises has ever come up but I could be wrong

I don't know of the CL principles :? I don't think my manual mentioned them and that being said, you can't really be wrong if you step through the law and apply it as it is. Section 4 (2) (I think) steps through the criteria being that you must consider (around 8 or 9) aspects like the forseeable harm they could come to, the presence of the danger etc. That should surely be enough?

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I don't know of the CL principles :? I don't think my manual mentioned them and that being said, you can't really be wrong if you step through the law and apply it as it is. Section 4 (2) (I think) steps through the criteria being that you must consider (around 8 or 9) aspects like the forseeable harm they could come to, the presence of the danger etc. That should surely be enough?

Going through the papers I don't think it ever comes up so I wouldn't worry about it! I'll give you some info tho as it could be useful to throw in as a little extra piece of advice to a client in a problem Q.

When the Act was introduced it split the law in half. The Act covers claims that relate to the state of the premises.

CL covers activity on the premises e.g. Calla v Hackett - P started a fight and was hit by the bouncer. Tried to claim under the Act. C held that S.3(2) relates to the state of the premises and the claim did not come within the 1995 Act.

The types of entrant are different under CL but the main difference between CL and the Act is that there is a higher DOC owed by an occupier under CL to Trespassers and by extension Recreational Users. As per McNamara v ESB an Occupier owed a duty to trespassers whom he could reasonably foresee e.g. kids playing in a field and the duty was to take such reasonable care as the circumstances demanded.

So you could advise your client if they were a trespasser that if it's possible to bring the claim under an Activity on the Premises they would be owed a higher DOC. The duty is to take reasonable care as opposed to avoid intentional injury/acting with reckless disregard.

I don't think there is enough on it to warrant it coming up by itself but could be something to throw in!

E.g. a wet floor in a supermarket, you would obviously go to the state of the premises but you could also try to make a case that it is an activity, washing the floor, and your client was owed a higher DOC.