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

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

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.

I knew little to nothing of that so that's very helpful, I have 500 cases for tort it feels like but McNamara I certainly know so I can use that as my example and the info to show off a little knowledge, thank you very much! In Calla v Hackett as you mentioned above, I would be terrified of a question where a bouncer on the owners premises assaults someone. - Is it Trespass to the person, Vicarious Liability or Occupier's liability? Choose wisely as you'll either get 13 or 3 !

bigtophat13

Constitutional peoples, going though the last 3 Spring papers there is always a supreme court case from the previous year. In 2017 there was one from 2016 and 2015!

What does everyone think could be the relevant ones for this? It's mad but I feel like I know none, yet any of those papers featured cases I feel I was award of - DPP v JC , Jordan v Minister for Children, Bederev v Ireland - But I feel there's nothing as groundbreaking as any of those recently! Have I been living underground or what?

http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/frmSCJudgmentsByYear?OpenForm&Start=1&Count=35&Expand=2&Seq=1

Those are all the cases that came up last year and I don't recognise many -_-

Vegetarian2017

Whats everyone covering for Company?
Im leaving out examinership. Is there any other obvious i could leave out?

lisac223

For anyone preparing a damages question in tort, could you give me a couple of pointers on how to go about answering the question "critically discuss how compensation for harm caused by way of a monetary payment of damages serves no useful function either in terms of deterrence or punishment of the tortfeasor." My manual just has the basics no critical discussion, thank you!

LawGirl3434

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I knew little to nothing of that so that's very helpful, I have 500 cases for tort it feels like but McNamara I certainly know so I can use that as my example and the info to show off a little knowledge, thank you very much! In Calla v Hackett as you mentioned above, I would be terrified of a question where a bouncer on the owners premises assaults someone. - Is it Trespass to the person, Vicarious Liability or Occupier's liability? Choose wisely as you'll either get 13 or 3 !

I think that this is a really good example of the importance of who you're being asked to advise. So if you're advising the bouncer - trespass to the person. Advising the employer - vicarious liability. There's actually a case with facts similar to this - Daniels v Whetstone (I think) - that held that employers won't be liable for independent acts of their employees. Basically, the bouncer at a pub chased a guy down the road and fractured his skill (as you do). For the occupier, I think they really do like to stress it's the state of the premises - so unless the guy who got hit fell over something as he ran away (which is so something they would throw in now I think about it) it wouldn't really come up.

That's just my understanding anyway! Also - may I ask what are peoples scope for negligent misstatement? For some reason, there wasn't actually a chapter in my manual on it. It's in my professional negligence notes and all I have is Hedley Byrne and Whelan and Ors v AIB. Then all my stuff on Bolam, Dunne, Medical/ Legal, etc. Am I covered or do I need more on this?

Thanks!

LawGirl3434

lisac223 wrote: »

For anyone preparing a damages question in tort, could you give me a couple of pointers on how to go about answering the question "critically discuss how compensation for harm caused by way of a monetary payment of damages serves no useful function either in terms of deterrence or punishment of the tortfeasor." My manual just has the basics no critical discussion, thank you!

This confuses me too! My manual literally gave the categories and a case for each. I feel if I had to answer it, I would say I agree with the statement of compensatory culture but that the value of damages is a lot more than that. Think then I'd go through how the threshold for general damages has increased so much, Denham J commented on it indirectly in a recent enough case. I'd probably argue inflation and rising cost of living in it's defence, but acknowledge the issue of compensation culture.

Then I'd argue my point there's more to damages than compensation - punitive/ exemplary, aggravated. Some interesting cases there you can waffle on about a bit! Also there's a quote in one of the textbooks noting these kind of damages are the greatest power a civil court has. In terms of deterrence, hard to argue this hypothetically so I don't think they'd expect much past this?

I'd develop this point with contemporaneous damages - Reynolds v Irish Times is an interesting case where 1p in damages were awarded, good example of how they're not just compensatory.

Think it's a lot of waffle but realistically what I'd do! I'd only have about 8 cases max though

Edit: sorry noticed there your Q didn't mention compensatory - I think a few years do, so realistically I'd probably still bring it in as it's a slim topic!

lisac223

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

This confuses me too! My manual literally gave the categories and a case for each. I feel if I had to answer it, I would say I agree with the statement of compensatory culture but that the value of damages is a lot more than that. Think then I'd go through how the threshold for general damages has increased so much, Denham J commented on it indirectly in a recent enough case. I'd probably argue inflation and rising cost of living in it's defence, but acknowledge the issue of compensation culture.

Then I'd argue my point there's more to damages than compensation - punitive/ exemplary, aggravated. Some interesting cases there you can waffle on about a bit! Also there's a quote in one of the textbooks noting these kind of damages are the greatest power a civil court has. In terms of deterrence, hard to argue this hypothetically so I don't think they'd expect much past this?

I'd develop this point with contemporaneous damages - Reynolds v Irish Times is an interesting case where 1p in damages were awarded, good example of how they're not just compensatory.

Think it's a lot of waffle but realistically what I'd do! I'd only have about 8 cases max though

Edit: sorry noticed there your Q didn't mention compensatory - I think a few years do, so realistically I'd probably still bring it in as it's a slim topic!

No that's great thank you I think I'll look at it from a defensive point saying that with the introduction of periodic payments that could very well act as a deterrent and then the cases re contemptuous and exemplary damages. Thanks!

LawGirl3434

lisac223 wrote: »

No that's great thank you I think I'll look at it from a defensive point saying that with the introduction of periodic payments that could very well act as a deterrent and then the cases re contemptuous and exemplary damages. Thanks!

Ooh good shout on PPO - think there was a working group recommendation on it recently enough

lawless11

Okay constitutional is making me crazy. I feel that there must be such level of detail of understanding for this exam compared to the rest.
The cases are just so. Complicated. For a good part.
Any reassurance from people who passed constitutional - how does it compare in terms of depth of knowledge to other exams?
Maybe it's just me being stupid on constitutional in general.

bigtophat13

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

I think that this is a really good example of the importance of who you're being asked to advise. So if you're advising the bouncer - trespass to the person. Advising the employer - vicarious liability. There's actually a case with facts similar to this - Daniels v Whetstone (I think) - that held that employers won't be liable for independent acts of their employees. Basically, the bouncer at a pub chased a guy down the road and fractured his skill (as you do). For the occupier, I think they really do like to stress it's the state of the premises - so unless the guy who got hit fell over something as he ran away (which is so something they would throw in now I think about it) it wouldn't really come up.

That's just my understanding anyway! Also - may I ask what are peoples scope for negligent misstatement? For some reason, there wasn't actually a chapter in my manual on it. It's in my professional negligence notes and all I have is Hedley Byrne and Whelan and Ors v AIB. Then all my stuff on Bolam, Dunne, Medical/ Legal, etc. Am I covered or do I need more on this?

Thanks!

Thank god he referred in the final line what the question was in relation to last time, hopefully he does the same now. Daniels v Whetstone indeed it was with the highly rational bouncer. Canadian SC said the assault in the pub was VL, when he chased after him and assaulted him again that was a frolic (what an innocent sounding term for what's usually a violent assault in the cases I've read)

No harm having some more financial cases

Negligent misstatement is it's own thing in a sense as well. Did you do PEL? If you did there'll be an overlap. In any case the following is a little outline:

England - Hedley Byrne brought back largely by Caparo in relation to incorrect accounts.

In Ireland in relation to Auditors and such we've had : Sisk v Cooper and Lyebrand, Golden Vale Co-Op v Barrett and Kelly v Haughey and Boland.

In relation to Auctioneers and estate agents: BOI v Smyth seemed to suggest there was no liability but then that turned out untrue. McCullagh v PB Gunne and Walsh v Jones Lang Lasalle

That would make you look good!

bigtophat13

lisac223 wrote: »

For anyone preparing a damages question in tort, could you give me a couple of pointers on how to go about answering the question "critically discuss how compensation for harm caused by way of a monetary payment of damages serves no useful function either in terms of deterrence or punishment of the tortfeasor." My manual just has the basics no critical discussion, thank you!

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

This confuses me too! My manual literally gave the categories and a case for each. I feel if I had to answer it, I would say I agree with the statement of compensatory culture but that the value of damages is a lot more than that. Think then I'd go through how the threshold for general damages has increased so much, Denham J commented on it indirectly in a recent enough case. I'd probably argue inflation and rising cost of living in it's defence, but acknowledge the issue of compensation culture.

Then I'd argue my point there's more to damages than compensation - punitive/ exemplary, aggravated. Some interesting cases there you can waffle on about a bit! Also there's a quote in one of the textbooks noting these kind of damages are the greatest power a civil court has. In terms of deterrence, hard to argue this hypothetically so I don't think they'd expect much past this?

I'd develop this point with contemporaneous damages - Reynolds v Irish Times is an interesting case where 1p in damages were awarded, good example of how they're not just compensatory.

Think it's a lot of waffle but realistically what I'd do! I'd only have about 8 cases max though

Edit: sorry noticed there your Q didn't mention compensatory - I think a few years do, so realistically I'd probably still bring it in as it's a slim topic!

Categories are:

-Non Pecuniary
-Pecuniary / Special
-Aggravated (where they've acted nasty or terribly towards the P) not to be confused with:
-Exemplary. The courts have explicitly said as in Conway v INTO that exemplary damages are to punish the wrongdoer for their reprehensible actions as distinct from Aggravated which is as a result of the harm suffered by the P.
-Nominal is where there is a good question to be tried and;
-Contemptuous is where they've essentially brought something which is technically right but is really an abuse of process!

Kaela12

Hi everyone,

Would anyone have the Spring 2017 exam paper for Equity that they could pass me on please? And if not could you tell me what questions came up?

Thanks

jewels652

Criminal law
Two topics:
Inchoate offences and complicity offences

Do they usually come up as an essay or problem question ???
TÍA

Kaela12

Incohate Offences and Complicity Offences mostly come up as problem questions.

bigtophat13

jewels652 wrote: »

Criminal law
Two topics:
Inchoate offences and complicity offences

Do they usually come up as an essay or problem question ???
TÍA

They will be up in some effect no matter what. If it's an essay, he has brought it up as simple as "explain the law on attempt in Ireland"

But if it's not in an essay keep a close eye out for offenders either in pairs where one is there but doesn't do the act so he's either aiding and abetting or in common design or perhaps in some cases conspiring.

Then very often they'll have someone attempt murder or attempt rape. In one of the recent sexual assault problem questions they almost fulfilled the offence but not quite, so that would be the attempt point to talk about and show off.

jewels652

bigtophat13 wrote: »

They will be up in some effect no matter what. If it's an essay, he has brought it up as simple as "explain the law on attempt in Ireland"

But if it's not in an essay keep a close eye out for offenders either in pairs where one is there but doesn't do the act so he's either aiding and abetting or in common design or perhaps in some cases conspiring.

Then very often they'll have someone attempt murder or attempt rape. In one of the recent sexual assault problem questions they almost fulfilled the offence but not quite, so that would be the attempt point to talk about and show off.

Thank you so much.
I only have like a paragraph on attempt not enough to write an essay I will probably add more to it.

marc24

lawless11 wrote: »

Okay constitutional is making me crazy. I feel that there must be such level of detail of understanding for this exam compared to the rest.
The cases are just so. Complicated. For a good part.
Any reassurance from people who passed constitutional - how does it compare in terms of depth of knowledge to other exams?
Maybe it's just me being stupid on constitutional in general.

I was totally convinced I failed constitutional in Oct. Not even sure what 2 of the questions I answered were actually asking but somehow managed to pass it. The examiner does seem to be pretty generous

bigtophat13

marc24 wrote: »

I was totally convinced I failed constitutional in Oct. Not even sure what 2 of the questions I answered were actually asking but somehow managed to pass it. The examiner does seem to be pretty generous

I can't tell you how much this relieves me too, some of those questions in constitutional I can't make heads nor tails of what they're asking, I'll do as many essays as I can!

lawless11

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I can't tell you how much this relieves me too, some of those questions in constitutional I can't make heads nor tails of what they're asking, I'll do as many essays as I can!

Same, I'm looking at them and just failing to identify the topics at least half of the time (except if it's like freedom of expression/association style things)!! It's dreadful.


I pray for easily identifiable problem questions!!

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

Same, I'm looking at them and just failing to identify the topics at least half of the time (except if it's like freedom of expression/association style things)!! It's dreadful.


I pray for easily identifiable problem questions!!

Privacy problems and Freedom of Expression Problems tend to be super obvious but then you have a question where it's looking like Property with some equality and a hint of due process and I'm lost in the woods and all turned round.

iamanengine

Would it be fair to say the Easement granted in Wong v Beaumont Property Trust is essentially a right of way? The easement allowed an air duct to be installed to allow air to travel from the building below up through the landlords building and then outside. So a right of way in the sense of allowing air to cross over and back as opposed to people.

There was a Q which had similar facts in a previous exam and the examiner noted that some only mentioned Re Ellenborough and Wong and more cases should be used so a bit of discussion on right of way would allow for that but I don't want to shove it in if it's not relevant either

z6vm1dobfnca3x

iamanengine wrote: »

Would it be fair to say the Easement granted in Wong v Beaumont Property Trust is essentially a right of way? The easement allowed an air duct to be installed to allow air to travel from the building below up through the landlords building and then outside. So a right of way in the sense of allowing air to cross over and back as opposed to people.

There was a Q which had similar facts in a previous exam and the examiner noted that some only mentioned Re Ellenborough and Wong and more cases should be used so a bit of discussion on right of way would allow for that but I don't want to shove it in if it's not relevant either

I am going to avoid specifying whether it is a right or way or not. What was important in Wong was that it was an easement of necessity.

I would say the Wong case is the most important case to know on easements. There have been multiple PQs in the past with facts almost identical to Wong.

z6vm1dobfnca3x

Interested to know how people are studying at this point?

i.e. are you drawing mind maps, doing past papers or just staring at pages of notes!?

I don't even know what approach to take at this point in terms of actual memorisation... There's just so much information!:eek:

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Would it be fair to say the Easement granted in Wong v Beaumont Property Trust is essentially a right of way? The easement allowed an air duct to be installed to allow air to travel from the building below up through the landlords building and then outside. So a right of way in the sense of allowing air to cross over and back as opposed to people.

There was a Q which had similar facts in a previous exam and the examiner noted that some only mentioned Re Ellenborough and Wong and more cases should be used so a bit of discussion on right of way would allow for that but I don't want to shove it in if it's not relevant either

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

I am going to avoid specifying whether it is a right or way or not. What was important in Wong was that it was an easement of necessity.

I would say the Wong case is the most important case to know on easements. There have been multiple PQs in the past with facts almost identical to Wong.

I'd give an overall discussion on the requirements of an easement, then with Wong I'd be very explicit on the necessity aspect. If you wanted you could go into the cases on Right of Way for sure and that would show you have the knowledge without explicitly saying that Wong is a Right of Way, as far as I remember Right of Ways are usually for travelling across land. In work I was involved in a few wayleaves which seem to fit the bill a bit more as they're usually for services to pass through / over land to service your land - e.g a folio separates your two plots, you might buy a 5m wayleave right just to get pipes between them. But I'm not sure so as above I'd avoid specificity.

lisac223

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Interested to know how people are studying at this point?

i.e. are you drawing mind maps, doing past papers or just staring at pages of notes!?

I don't even know what approach to take at this point in terms of actual memorisation... There's just so much information!:eek:

I'm wondering this myself! I'm trying to test myself on cases and I think I'll have one topic down and then forget another topic I learned yesterday! It's very overwhelming

iamanengine

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Interested to know how people are studying at this point?

i.e. are you drawing mind maps, doing past papers or just staring at pages of notes!?

I don't even know what approach to take at this point in terms of actual memorisation... There's just so much information!:eek:

My approach has been basically just to read over my notes and try and memorise cases. I move on to the next topic once I've read through the previous and don't worry too much if I have memorised all the cases or not.

My thinking is to just get as familiar as possible with all the information, hope it's percolating in the back of my head/remember bits and pieces, which will make it easier to cram it all in the day before each exam.

z6vm1dobfnca3x

iamanengine wrote: »

My thinking is to just get as familiar as possible with all the information, hope it's percolating in the back of my head/remember bits and pieces, which will make it easier to cram it all in the day before each exam.

I think you're right there.

Sometimes you feel as if you don't know it but then a small prompt (such as the facts in a PQ) remind you of relevant cases etc.

Also, when you start to write - things start to unfold naturally I find.

I wonder if there's time to employ a hypnotist to brainwash me with caselaw!

LawGirl3434

iamanengine wrote: »

My approach has been basically just to read over my notes and try and memorise cases. I move on to the next topic once I've read through the previous and don't worry too much if I have memorised all the cases or not.

My thinking is to just get as familiar as possible with all the information, hope it's percolating in the back of my head/remember bits and pieces, which will make it easier to cram it all in the day before each exam.

I'm in the same boat - it's funny, you spend so long worrying about the technicalities of your notes and if they're thorough enough and then realistically you won't remember a portion of them

lawless11

Anyone could explain what's the craic with Hogan J and 'fashioning' a remedy in BG v District Judge Murphy and McCabe v Governor of Mountjoy ?
What is that even, but a real judicial (over)creativity to not strike down legislation? Needless to say I don't get the crafting done of the sentencing in those two cases and how that was possible.

fe1stress29

does anyone know which topics are most likely to come up in Equity (my exam grid only goes up to 2016 and i'm having a freak out that i didnt cover the best ones) sincerely, panicked mess.