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

sapphire309

Fe1hayes wrote: »

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.

I'm struggling with EU too - did 2 days of EU revision last week and I could barely tell you 1 thing about what I revised. I know people say the pass rate is one of the higher ones for EU, but I have no clue how I'm going to remember it, it's all so complex and obscure!

bigtophat13

holliek wrote: »

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

Just read it yesterday, it was a boring as hell case but it was held regarding the NDD that there was no breach of 15.2 because the actions the officer carried out in reporting him were incidental and supplemental to the regulations. Held for the boat owner with regards to fair procedure however.

https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2017/12/14/osullivan-v-sea-fisheries-protection-authority-ministers-administrative-scheme-breached-fair-procedure/

holliek

bigtophat13 wrote: »

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!

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.

Thank you both! I'll do some brief notes re Heaney, Tuohy, Gorman and the Bill etc. I had originally planned to do it but never wrote the notes up, thanks for the help

bigtophat13

laurar2019 wrote: »

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"?

I have the same as you with the addition of family property and licenses and estoppel. I think you've a good shout with those, probably 80% safe but wouldn't be any harm to do another of LLord and Tenant (not doing it myself, its a big time investment) , Mortgages, Fam Home, licenses.

That's in order of likelihood of coming up I feel

Fe1hayes

sapphire309 wrote: »

I'm struggling with EU too - did 2 days of EU revision last week and I could barely tell you 1 thing about what I revised. I know people say the pass rate is one of the higher ones for EU, but I have no clue how I'm going to remember it, it's all so complex and obscure!

I know what you mean I think with EU in regards to the pass rate being so it's more just throwing down everything you know in regards to any relevance. Examiner doesn't seem to be to particular. Contract on the other hand seems more specific and little tolerance for irrelevant information.

iamanengine

lisac223 wrote: »

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!

Is this for criminal? I was thinking about learning enough for a full Q, seems to come up a decent amount but I don’t like it as a topic, will learn enough for part of a Q but not a full Q.

bigtophat13

Are Ss 18 & 19 of the public order act of any relevance? They mention assaults with intent to cause bodily harm (surely overlap with the NFOAPA?) and assault of an officer. I never considered them or read on them before but I just heard about them yesterday.

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Are Ss 18 & 19 of the public order act of any relevance? They mention assaults with intent to cause bodily harm (surely overlap with the NFOAPA?) and assault of an officer. I never considered them or read on them before but I just heard about them yesterday.

You can mention them for sure. If there is a Q with an assault you can mention that they could be prosecuted under S.2/3 NFOAP or S.18 CJ (Public Order). If the facts allow you can use S.19 to flex your extra knowledge, though probably unlikely they will be a medical worker etc

z6vm1dobfnca3x

Am I right in saying that if family property comes up on Thursday, it's likely to be a PQ?

nimcdona

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!

Thanks for this! I'm going to try get a chance to at least look at them so I have some knowledge on it

nimcdona

This is probably an obvious question, but for the right of appropriation in succession s. 56 what does it actually mean to say the the surviving spouse has a right to request the personal rep would appropriate the house in satisfaction of the LRS? Does the personal rep live in the house then and is it instead of anything left in the will to the personal rep or does it mean the wife doesn't get her LRS if she opts for this?

Its probably simple just my brain is mush today

nimcdona

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Am I right in saying that if family property comes up on Thursday, it's likely to be a PQ?

I think to could be either or, the last two exams it was a problem question and the 4 before that were all essay questions that were virtually the same.


so it's nearly impossible to say which one is more likely in my opinion anyway, but i could be wrong

iamanengine

nimcdona wrote: »

This is probably an obvious question, but for the right of appropriation in succession s. 56 what does it actually mean to say the the surviving spouse has a right to request the personal rep would appropriate the house in satisfaction of the LRS? Does the personal rep live in the house then and is it instead of anything left in the will to the personal rep or does it mean the wife doesn't get her LRS if she opts for this?
Its probably simple just my brain is mush today

S.56 allows the spouse to take the house as part of the LRS. No the personal rep doesn’t live in the house it just gives them the right to give the house to the spouse if requested

iamanengine

Is my understanding of PG v Ireland correct in that it allows the defence of mistake as to age provided the victim was over the age of 15?

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Is my understanding of PG v Ireland correct in that it allows the defence of mistake as to age provided the victim was over the age of 15?

Yep, in the same vein as CC v Ireland they held that consent was no excuse but for such a serious offence you had to prove mens rea as well and as such the Strict Liability formulation which was there was not fair and they held it Uncon. They held you needed to be able to use the honest belief defence and that was brought in in the 2006 Sexual Offences act where Ss 2 & 3 relate to children under 15 and 17 respectively with both sections allowing them to use the honest belief defence and then the jury can consider whether it was reasonable in the circs.

Like rape they're going to be deciding if they honestly believed it, not whether it was a reasonable belief. It's nuanced enough and easy to mix up, but they use the circs regarding whether it was reasonable to decide if they honestly believed so.

So even if it was totally unreasonable but they felt for some odd reason that the person honestly believed they were of age, or consented in the rape context then they would have to acquit.

nimcdona

iamanengine wrote: »

S.56 allows the spouse to take the house as part of the LRS. No the personal rep doesn’t live in the house it just gives them the right to give the house to the spouse if requested

Thanks for that get it now, was just having a moment haha

scooby321

For Constitution I'm thinking of studying the following chapters:

1. Amending the Constitution
2. Findings of Unconstitutionality
3. Separation of Powers
4. Due Course
5. Limiting & Balancing Rights
6. Personal Rights
7. Property Rights
8. Freedom of Expression

Do you think this would be enough to secure a pass? Any opinions much appreciated

JCormac

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

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).

Hopefully she doesn't introduce any new areas to the Note Q that haven't been on it before.

She wasn't too happy last sitting with the quality of the Strong v Bird answers iirc. Whether that means she'll have Strong there again though is unknown, cause three times in a row would seem a bit predictable

lawlad101

scooby321 wrote: »

For Constitution I'm thinking of studying the following chapters:

1. Amending the Constitution
2. Findings of Unconstitutionality
3. Separation of Powers
4. Due Course
5. Limiting & Balancing Rights
6. Personal Rights
7. Property Rights
8. Freedom of Expression

Do you think this would be enough to secure a pass? Any opinions much appreciated

I'm doing same, but with Family Rights. I also plan to cover Oireachtas privilege/non-reviewability and interpretation!

iamanengine

Obligatory panic about not covering enough for Tort kicking in...do I have enough/anything I should really be covering?

Ryland/Nuisance/ToL
Trespass to Person
PEL/NM
Nervous Shock
Passing Off
Defective Products
Occupiers
Vicarious
Liability for Animals
Defamation
Negligence
Medical Negligence

Feels like I know nothing atm, major cramming to be done over next 2 and a half days!

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Obligatory panic about not covering enough for Tort kicking in...do I have enough/anything I should really be covering?

Ryland/Nuisance/ToL
Trespass to Person
PEL/NM
Nervous Shock
Passing Off
Defective Products
Occupiers
Vicarious
Liability for Animals
Defamation
Negligence
Medical Negligence

Feels like I know nothing atm, major cramming to be done over next 2 and a half days!

So completely and utterly fine, you've 15 examinable topics there!

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

So completely and utterly fine, you've 15 examinable topics there!

Now for the simple matter of learning off all of the cases!

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Now for the simple matter of learning off all of the cases!

I made the mistake of counting my cases for tort, pro tip, don't count your cases for tort!

lawless11

Have the same topics, just swapping animal liability for damages!! Urgh. I don't want to know how many cases I have. But it's about 6 A4 pages double sided divided in two columns (with chapter titles in between). I want to die? (Didn't even include trespass into those pages, just trying to learn it off off my bigger notes, no motivation to sum it up as it's Friday evening).

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

Have the same topics, just swapping animal liability for damages!! Urgh. I don't want to know how many cases I have. But it's about 6 A4 pages double sided divided in two columns (with chapter titles in between). I want to die? (Didn't even include trespass into those pages, just trying to learn it off off my bigger notes, no motivation to sum it up as it's Friday evening).

I think I'm the same as you and close to engine, swapped damages for animals.

I too use the halved page method!

I'm the exact same, so sick of learning but I just keep saying that all the work the last few months is to understand it and recall-able, but it's the next 48 hours and the nights before the exams where you make it stick and get to show off so just keep pushing, nearly there!

channing90

I would really appreciate if someone could lend me the companies act, I completely forgot about it. Also are people still studying the question on changes to the 2014 companies act since its not come up in a while and the amendment act 2017 has been introduced ?

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I think I'm the same as you and close to engine, swapped damages for animals.

I too use the halved page method!

I'm the exact same, so sick of learning but I just keep saying that all the work the last few months is to understand it and recall-able, but it's the next 48 hours and the nights before the exams where you make it stick and get to show off so just keep pushing, nearly there!

Ye are prob much better off covering damages over Animals. I just have a completely unwarranted gut feeling Animals will come up!

LawGirl3434

iamanengine wrote: »

Ye are prob much better off covering damages over Animals. I just have a completely unwarranted gut feeling Animals will come up!

I have this too like I am abolsolutey sure it will come up

Also have a weird feeling in constituional will be a problem Q on people protesting outside of an abortion clinic for FOE/ FOA

jamesob123

channing90 wrote: »

I would really appreciate if someone could lend me the companies act, I completely forgot about it. Also are people still studying the question on changes to the 2014 companies act since its not come up in a while and the amendment act 2017 has been introduced ?

Unfortunately I think the time has passed for that one to be coming up, I'm staying away from this topic anyways

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Ye are prob much better off covering damages over Animals. I just have a completely unwarranted gut feeling Animals will come up!

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

I have this too like I am abolsolutey sure it will come up

Also have a weird feeling in constituional will be a problem Q on people protesting outside of an abortion clinic for FOE/ FOA

Ok animals is an outside but decent shout, but if you're spot on with an abortion clinic protest I'm calling heresy or leaks!