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

holliek

Legal23 wrote: »

I'm going for the magic three for the 3rd time and I'm losing heart. I've signed up for 4 this time round with criminal being my additional subject. I've got condensed notes done but I find I'm rewriting all my notes again in the learning process. Tbh, I've mostly focused on my past exams so I've left criminal to the end. I'm starting to panic looking at the topics today and feel like I'm getting nowhere. I'm just wondering from your experience would I be better off not sitting criminal and just focus on getting my three, spending the next few days being fully prepared for my 3 exams or do I spend the next day and a half cramming to get criminal into my head... Is it possible to pass if I feel like nothing is going in at this point???

I'd say chance it and do criminal, spend your time doing homocide, non-fatal, property offences - they all have to appear somewhere. Your leaving no room for error if you only do 3 and esp as you've done 3 before they should come back to you.

holliek

starfishxxo wrote: »

Re. company, can anyone advise - is notification still a crystallising event as in JD Brian despite that it no longer gives priority above preferential creditors since the Companies (Accounting) Act? (I'm working off of an older manual ��)

I get so confused with crystallisation and the preferential parts!! I thought notice from a debenture holder was still applicable? I could be wrong though

Gunslinger92

starfishxxo wrote: »

Re. company, can anyone advise - is notification still a crystallising event as in JD Brian despite that it no longer gives priority above preferential creditors since the Companies (Accounting) Act? (I'm working off of an older manual ��)

I think it is still a crystallising event. It's just that it won't have priority over preferential creditors anymore

kasey0123

Crystallization by express notice is still a legitimate means of crystallization.. but the 2017 act brought in changes because of what happened in JD Brian, so they can still crystallize be notice but it will have no effect on priority in relation to pref creditors? I think..

I have 5 ways of crystallization: receivership, commencement of winding up, express crystallization by service of notice, automatic crystallization and cessation of business

kasey0123

Can anyone shed some light of the top 7 topics in Company.. only have a few more hours to cover stuff

sapphire309

kasey0123 wrote: »

Crystallization by express notice is still a legitimate means of crystallization.. but the 2017 act brought in changes because of what happened in JD Brian, so they can still crystallize be notice but it will have no effect on priority in relation to pref creditors? I think..

I have 5 ways of crystallization: receivership, commencement of winding up, express crystallization by service of notice, automatic crystallization and cessation of business

What is the difference between express crystallisation by notice and automatic crystallisation?

holliek

Am I right in thinking in JD the bank were allowed to claim in priority of the Revenue (pref creditors). Because of this loophole, the 2017 act was introduced to prevent it from re-occurring?

Also, if this is the case why don't they want the bank to be able to have priority over the pref creditors? Like why is it so bad?

iamanengine

Covering for Criminal:

Classifications
AR/MR
Sexual Offences
Homicide
Non-Fatal Offences
Offences against Property
Defences
Bail/Arrest/Detention
Presumption of Innocence/Right to Silence/Courts

Thoughts? Is it enough?

kasey0123

holliek wrote: »

Am I right in thinking in JD the bank were allowed to claim in priority of the Revenue (pref creditors). Because of this loophole, the 2017 act was introduced to prevent it from re-occurring?

Also, if this is the case why don't they want the bank to be able to have priority over the pref creditors? Like why is it so bad?

Yep! I have no idea why haha... think it’s just because preferential creditors like the revenue and employees wages and outstanding claims and stuff is viewed as more important than feeding the corporate machines

kasey0123

sapphire309 wrote: »

What is the difference between express crystallisation by notice and automatic crystallisation?

Had this Question myself.. no idea but Courtney and thuiller both refer to them separately for some reason.. don’t really get it!

decco201

If anyone has the tort paper from today would they mind taking pic and sending to me, I’ve lost mine and want to show my friend please

JCormac

iamanengine wrote: »

Covering for Criminal:

Classifications
AR/MR
Sexual Offences
Homicide
Non-Fatal Offences
Offences against Property
Defences
Bail/Arrest/Detention
Presumption of Innocence/Right to Silence/Courts

Thoughts? Is it enough?

I'd definitely consider covering Complicity in Offences if you haven't already.

Other than that you're solid :pac:

nimcdona

iamanengine wrote: »

Covering for Criminal:

Classifications
AR/MR
Sexual Offences
Homicide
Non-Fatal Offences
Offences against Property
Defences
Bail/Arrest/Detention
Presumption of Innocence/Right to Silence/Courts

Thoughts? Is it enough?

concerned I don't know what AR/MR is ...

iamanengine

nimcdona wrote: »

concerned I don't know what AR/MR is ...

Actus Reus/Mens Rea :P

nimcdona

iamanengine wrote: »

Actus Reus/Mens Rea :P

Hahaha my bad, can safely say I have them covered anyway

sapphire309

Does anybody else ever worry that you've drank so much coffee and red bull during this period that you'll just have a heart attack

SwD

Lovestolisten wrote: »

Q3 I really felt it referred to Psychological Damage.
Eoin Quill has a short section in 2nd edition of Torts in Ireland under Miscellaneous Torts.
My book is old so maybe more cases since this edition.
I looked at it under Intentional Torts.
I don’t know if Nervous Shock would satisfy, proximity requirement would fail.. Ex relationship .. If Brothers failed in Alcock an ex girl friend would be way too remote.

Cuddy v Mays - the plaintiffs brother was deemed to satisfy the 'close relationship' test, furthering the Irish more relaxed approach in contrast to Alcock as per Kelly.

I took a dual perspective. I contended that her act was one which negligently inflicted psychiatric damage but there may also lie an action in trespass to the person for intentionally inflicting emotional distress as per Wilkinson. Looking forward to the examiners report.

xBell123

kasey0123 wrote: »

Had this Question myself.. no idea but Courtney and thuiller both refer to them separately for some reason.. don’t really get it!

I think express is where the debenture expressly says you can convert / notify to crystallise, but automatic is where crystallisation happens automatically upon a certain event without any action taken by the debenture holder. My manual says automatic crystallisation exists in Irish debentures but hasn’t yet been tested in the courts.

Vegetarian2017

sapphire309 wrote:

Does anybody else ever worry that you've drank so much coffee and red bull during this period that you'll just have a heart attack

Trying to avoid it cannot sleep at all drank both last night and this morning. Tried to have 3 power naps after no sleep not happening. Affecting study so bad. My brain is mush from tiredness. Seriously reconsidering tomorrows exam.

Vegetarian2017

Does anyone know what came up on the last company exam slp / ultra??

Gunslinger92

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Does anyone know what came up on the last company exam slp / ultra??

Neither came up last sitting!
I don't have the paper but I took it down when someone posted after the exam last sitting:

- duty of company to act in interests of company (?)
- duties of receiver
- ostensible authority; turquands case
- liability of directors for reckless and fraudulent trading and failure to keep proper books
- restriction orders
- distributions
- foss v harbottle
- retention of title clauses; charges over book debts

Hope that helps

clearsky99

Can someone tell me what came up in March for constitutional? And if ye have any of the predictions! Finding it hard to narrow down

lawless11

Criminal - is there a defence of reasonable care for strict liability offences? Keane J commented in Shannon Regional Fisheries that is should be available, but so... is it or is it not? xD

jewels652

iamanengine wrote: »

Covering for Criminal:

Classifications
AR/MR
Sexual Offences
Homicide
Non-Fatal Offences
Offences against Property
Defences
Bail/Arrest/Detention
Presumption of Innocence/Right to Silence/Courts

Thoughts? Is it enough?

I am covering the same as you except for the courts. There are so o many Acts and sections to remember for criminal, feeling frustrated

LawGirl3434

SwD wrote: »

Cuddy v Mays - the plaintiffs brother was deemed to satisfy the 'close relationship' test, furthering the Irish more relaxed approach in contrast to Alcock as per Kelly.

I took a dual perspective. I contended that her act was one which negligently inflicted psychiatric damage but there may also lie an action in trespass to the person for intentionally inflicting emotional distress as per Wilkinson. Looking forward to the examiners report.

This is exactly what I did

Vegetarian2017

@gunslinger
Thanks a mill. I was going to leave ultra out mmm not sure. Need to chop either way. I have a feeling it is going to be a brutal paper ;/

Also duty of company to act in interest of company?

sapphire309

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Neither came up last sitting!
I don't have the paper but I took it down when someone posted after the exam last sitting:

- duty of company to act in interests of company (?)
- duties of receiver
- ostensible authority; turquands case
- liability of directors for reckless and fraudulent trading and failure to keep proper books
- restriction orders
- distributions
- foss v harbottle
- retention of title clauses; charges over book debts

Hope that helps

I'm very much hoping tomorrows paper is nothing like this… Leaving out receivers, corporate authority, reckless/fraudulent trading, distributions… Also leaving out ultra vires and changes to the act, and my knowledge of charges is questionable

Vegetarian2017

Gunslinger92 wrote:

Neither came up last sitting! I don't have the paper but I took it down when someone posted after the exam last sitting:

Gunslinger92 wrote:

- duty of company to act in interests of company (?) - duties of receiver - ostensible authority; turquands case - liability of directors for reckless and fraudulent trading and failure to keep proper books - restriction orders - distributions - foss v harbottle - retention of title clauses; charges over book debts

Gunslinger92 wrote:

Hope that helps

Does he tend to have a pattern to not repeat or should we still study for example ostensible? I haven't really looked at grids

Gunslinger92

sapphire309 wrote: »

I'm very much hoping tomorrows paper is nothing like this… Leaving out receivers, corporate authority, reckless/fraudulent trading, distributions… Also leaving out ultra vires and changes to the act, and my knowledge of charges is questionable

Me too, a couple of nasty ones on there. But Reckless and fraudulent trading is easy and very short!

z6vm1dobfnca3x

Did anyone find it difficult to get parking at the Red Cow today or are there generally lots of spaces?