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

iamanengine

nimcdona wrote: »

I don't see myself having the time to cover the courts and criminal procedures topic, can someone tell me if this would be a big mistake or if you could still get by ok without it?

From what I've seen there will usually be about 2 questions involving some mix of Characteristics/classification of offences, courts, arrest/detention/bail, right to silence, presumption of innocence.

I'd say if you study everything else you should almost certainly have 5 Q's though

laurar2019

is shareholder protection an important chapter to do ?

laurar2019

SLP, Ultra vires, CA, DD, restriction, fraud & reckless trading, Liquidation, receivership, shareholder protection. Is this enough to pass or should I add something else in?? never crammed so much in my life haha

bigtophat13

Breacnua wrote: »

Agree!

iamanengine wrote: »

From what I've seen there will usually be about 2 questions involving some mix of Characteristics/classification of offences, courts, arrest/detention/bail, right to silence, presumption of innocence.

I'd say if you study everything else you should almost certainly have 5 Q's though

I think looking at all the papers in the last 3 and a half years there was typically one question featuring the rights to silence, innocence etc. Then there was usually one on either the courts or classification of offences. 2 in the last 7 though there was 3 - Nature of the offence, Aspects like innocence etc and Courts. 1 in the last 7 there was only 1.

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I think looking at all the papers in the last 3 and a half years there was typically one question featuring the rights to silence, innocence etc. Then there was usually one on either the courts or classification of offences. 2 in the last 7 though there was 3 - Nature of the offence, Aspects like innocence etc and Courts. 1 in the last 7 there was only 1.

Of those I think presumption of innocence is due up as is courts.

Bail is almost always on again off again and didn't come up last year.

Classification has been popular recently and hasn't come up last 2 sittings.

The thing about procedural type Q's is that they are lovely to answer on, short topics and you're mostly just stating the law, there's not really much issues to grapple with.

The way I'm looking at it is, Sexual Offences 1 Q, Homicide 1 Q, Procedural etc 2 Q's...then more than likely there will be either a Non Fatal or Property Offences Q. Wishful thinking!

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Of those I think presumption of innocence is due up as is courts.

Bail is almost always on again off again and didn't come up last year.

Classification has been popular recently and hasn't come up last 2 sittings.

The thing about procedural type Q's is that they are lovely to answer on, short topics and you're mostly just stating the law, there's not really much issues to grapple with.

The way I'm looking at it is, Sexual Offences 1 Q, Homicide 1 Q, Procedural etc 2 Q's...then more than likely there will be either a Non Fatal or Property Offences Q. Wishful thinking!

I agree with all of your points, Bail wasn't up and it's popular for either an essay or to be incorporated into a problem or one of those faux-problems where your client basically asks for an essay on his rights.

Nature of a criminal act was up on the theory side last time so that classification question is due and no courts last time means the same!

It's funny I don't like the procedural stuff because I feel I'm not writing enough to show off, I always feel like I want 3-4 11/12s so I know I can afford a shocker and the procedural stuff feels very 10 markish to me, but hey that's just me!

I think sexual offences is a good shout for 1 if not 2 questions, he asks it alot. Could be the bulk of a problem based on a rape and assault problem and then one of those 4 parters on the more obscure sexual offences like taking advantage of a protected person and the underage children offences.

Just disgusted at all the statute to learn off. I know I should learn the lengths of sentences but I don't think I have the time to grind it too

bigtophat13

The law books are even hazy on the distinction between common design and aiding and abetting so I'm ok with not being able to clarify that for the exam (just say it's either or) but am I right in my understanding that both can be charged as the principal offender? I.e if you're charged with aiding murder by some relatively distant action you could be charged exactly the same if you were the getaway driver who didn't pull the trigger? (common design) Correct me if I'm wrong, just want to get it straight and not sound silly!

Breacnua

cases i can remember covered at the talk in Jan

M v Minister for Justice and Equality
C v Minister for Social Protection
Blehein v Minister for Health and Children
Wansboro v DPP
Ryan v Governor of Mountjoy

Vegetarian2017

laurar2019 wrote:

SLP, Ultra vires, CA, DD, restriction, fraud & reckless trading, Liquidation, receivership, shareholder protection. Is this enough to pass or should I add something else in?? never crammed so much in my life haha

Looks similar to me except Im covering realisation of assets fraud preferences and only a small portion of liquidation

Vegetarian2017

Is Ultra and SLP due for company was it up last sitting? Also has the 5 changes of 2014 act been asked recently,??

lisac223

nimcdona wrote: »

I don't see myself having the time to cover the courts and criminal procedures topic, can someone tell me if this would be a big mistake or if you could still get by ok without it?

For the courts, I checked most of the papers (back to 2010) and he only asked for an outline of all the courts once. He consistently asks about the composition, scope and jurisdiction of the SCC and the COA so I am making an educated guess that those two will come up and ignoring the rest!

LawGirl3434

lisac223 wrote: »

For the courts, I checked most of the papers (back to 2010) and he only asked for an outline of all the courts once. He consistently asks about the composition, scope and jurisdiction of the SCC and the COA so I am making an educated guess that those two will come up and ignoring the rest!

Thank you for this - i have brief notes on the composition of all of the courts, and 2/3 relevant cases for SCC and COA. Would I be correct in assuming that a question along these lines (if I had to answer it, as these are my only back up topics) would be largely based on the theory around the scope etc.? Or am I missing some key stuff?

With regards to Bail, I'm aware it comes up as an essay and I don't have much other than Purcell, Duffy, Callaghan, Maguire, McGinley, the 1997 Act, 2006/7 acts in how they interacted with bail and then really just all of the procedural stuff.

Would I be correct in assuming that this area of the course is very limited in terms of case law?

Thanks!

lisac223

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Thank you for this - i have brief notes on the composition of all of the courts, and 2/3 relevant cases for SCC and COA. Would I be correct in assuming that a question along these lines (if I had to answer it, as these are my only back up topics) would be largely based on the theory around the scope etc.? Or am I missing some key stuff?

With regards to Bail, I'm aware it comes up as an essay and I don't have much other than Purcell, Duffy, Callaghan, Maguire, McGinley, the 1997 Act, 2006/7 acts in how they interacted with bail and then really just all of the procedural stuff.

Would I be correct in assuming that this area of the course is very limited in terms of case law?

Thanks!

Yeah that's plenty. Can I ask what cases you have for the COA bc I only have the legislation I didn't see any cases for it in my manual? For the courts he def just wants to be told how they are set up and their jurisdiction.

Bail seems to be 80/90% procedural as well with a few cases thrown in to show off!

lisac223

Does any kind soul have the March 2016 exam report for Criminal and would be willing to share? I can swap most reports for Tort, Property or Equity if you need them

Doser

Best of luck guys! Some really useful nuggets littered throughout this thread.

I've been focused on Company, my first exam of this sitting. For what it's worth for people asking, I think it'd be safe having Corporate Capacity and Authority, Directors Duties, Shares, Shareholders, Borrowing and Charges, Examinership, Receivership, and Liquidation.

Just trying to be proactive in asking people's thoughts for EU/Constitutional over the next week or two and the "must study" topics? I've spent the last few weeks getting familiar across the board, but now I realise I need to get that little bit narrower! EU and Constitutional are absolutely my least favourite of all the exams! Thanks in advance, you're all super.

holliek

I'm leaving out proportionality for Constitutional, is that ok?

Doser

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Is Ultra and SLP due for company was it up last sitting? Also has the 5 changes of 2014 act been asked recently,??

Ultra Vires and SLP are definitely two I've covered in anticipation of them being asked. For the changes to the act, I'm think we're just a few years out and I can't see it being covered. I've been willing to take it as my hit and have the remaining 7 questions, but I cant see it surfacing myself.

lawless11

holliek wrote: »

I'm leaving out proportionality for Constitutional, is that ok?

I personally wouldn't. It's quite important for all the encroached rights that come up in a potential problem question. You can just learn the basic Heaney / Tuohy distinction and a few newer cases.

Gunslinger92

Doser wrote: »

Ultra Vires and SLP are definitely two I've covered in anticipation of them being asked. For the changes to the act, I'm think we're just a few years out and I can't see it being covered. I've been willing to take it as my hit and have the remaining 7 questions, but I cant see it surfacing myself.

But ultra vires is pretty much moot now given that it doesn't apply to LTDs anymore which is what the majority of the course focuses on... I wouldn't be banking on it, that's for sure

laurar2019

Property: Succession, co ownership, easements, adverse possession, land reg & findings. Is that enough to pass do you think or should I add in one more? what always comes up besides succession and AP"?

Daly29

sapphire309 wrote: »

I would prioritise Directors’ Duties, Restriction of Directors, SLP, Corporate Borrowing, Shareholder Remedies (s.212), Winding Up and Distribution of Assets, Share Transfers

Exact topics I have done :-)

JCormac

What are people's predictions for Equity?


I've a gut feeling about DMC coming up, for some reason

z6vm1dobfnca3x

JCormac wrote: »

What are people's predictions for Equity?


I've a gut feeling about DMC coming up, for some reason

I'm hoping for:

Charitable
Non-Charitable
Cy-Pres
Quia Timet Inj.
DMC

Also covering:

Specific Performance
Recission
Satisfaction
Strong v Bird
Advancement
Mandatory Inj.
Trusteeship
Three Certainties
Rectification
UI

Am I covering way too much here?

I'm not a big fan of Equity at all and I don't want there to be any surprises.

JCormac

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

I'm hoping for:

Charitable
Non-Charitable
Cy-Pres
Quia Timet Inj.
DMC

Also covering:

Specific Performance
Recission
Satisfaction
Strong v Bird
Advancement
Mandatory Inj.
Trusteeship
Three Certainties
Rectification
UI

Am I covering way too much here?

I'm not a big fan of Equity at all and I don't want there to be any surprises.

To be honest, I'm only starting on Equity now for the first time since October.
I pumped all my time into Criminal/Contract/Property as my three, only realising this week that I'd definitely need Equity in case one of the three threw any curveballs.

In saying that though, with regard to what comes up, you seem pretty covered imo. Focusing on Quia Timet is the right call I'd say.

I'd hedge my bets with the Note question too


I'm covering:
DMC
Trusteeship
Charitable/Non Charitable
Strong v Bird
Advancement
Promissory
UI

Any suggestions from anyone are welcome!

z6vm1dobfnca3x

JCormac wrote: »

To be honest, I'm only starting on Equity now for the first time since October.
I pumped all my time into Criminal/Contract/Property as my three, only realising this week that I'd definitely need Equity in case one of the three threw any curveballs.

In saying that though, with regard to what comes up, you seem pretty covered imo. Focusing on Quia Timet is the right call I'd say.

I'd hedge my bets with the Note question too


I'm covering:
DMC
Trusteeship
Charitable/Non Charitable
Strong v Bird
Advancement
Promissory
UI

Any suggestions from anyone are welcome!

Sounds good to me!

Also, I reckon Charitable / Cy-Pres may come up in one PQ as they have before.

So I'm really hoping for:

1) Charitable & Cy-Pres PQ / Non-Charitable
2) Note Question
3) DMC
4) Quia Timet
5) Specific P & Rectification together may be on the cards on I think.

I guess I've covered so many because of the fact that there's often crossover of topics. (Note question for example).

Fe1hayes

Anyone else struggling a lot with cases, I am doing EU and Contract and know I have a good bit of time but no matter how many times I write/read notes I cannot say I remember even half the cases.

bigtophat13

Breacnua wrote: »

cases i can remember covered at the talk in Jan

M v Minister for Justice and Equality
C v Minister for Social Protection
Blehein v Minister for Health and Children
Wansboro v DPP
Ryan v Governor of Mountjoy

Thank you, I'm gonna have a look on the basis of hoping I get a wildcard!

holliek

Anyone able to explain the significance of O'Sullivan v Sea Fisheries Protection Authority with the non-delegation doctrine?

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

I personally wouldn't. It's quite important for all the encroached rights that come up in a potential problem question. You can just learn the basic Heaney / Tuohy distinction and a few newer cases.

I second this, it should really be brought into any restriction of a right - it's always either balancing or restricting and the latter requires at least a mention of proportionality. If it's property it's typically at the centre of the courts analysis, just know Heaney is strict and non deferential, Tuohy is deferential to a large degree and that Gorman v Min for environment and Re Art 26 and the planning and redevelopment bill 1999 both endorsed Heaney for property and he'll think you're great!

lisac223

What do we think of the chances for strict liability? Came up in the last 3 papers and as part of an essay (Q4) in Oct. 2018. I have an essay done on it but don't know whether it's worth my time to spend learning it off!