Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I sat property in March and I learned both of those topics.
For L&T it is super topical at the moment considering the new act that came into effect in May. It has far-reaching effects for landlords and I had a whole set of notes done up on the changes (at that time that were due to come into effect) and it would have been a straight forward application of them. L&T is actually very methodical once you get down to it and since the new Act came into force after the last sitting I think it could be likely to come up.
Mortgages is a brilliant question to do bc it only ever comes up one way and literally all you do is learn pre-2009 law and post-2009 law under 6 sub-headings with very few cases. It's so mechanical that even though it comes up as a problem question it's always asking the same thing. I even mixed one part up and had arrows all over my paper in March and I still passed comfortably and knew that mortgages was my most solid question.
Just my two cents!
P.S. mortgages is answered by very few students and it seems like (going by the reports) the examiner will throw a few extra marks your way just for doing it!
This is really helpful! Thanks a mill. I'm so behind on my timetable i'm trying not to panic but this has calmed me down somewhat. How did you find Land overall?
0 -
This is really helpful! Thanks a mill. I'm so behind on my timetable i'm trying not to panic but this has calmed me down somewhat. How did you find Land overall?
The exam really wasn't bad at all. I found it very predictable and the questions were worded pretty much exactly as they had been in the past. She says the same thing in her exam papers for certain questions every year so for most of the questions I followed what she said and I did grand! Succession obv is a must, you should know it inside out. Adverse possession is another must, it's a bit big but you could be looking at a problem Q this time around bc in March she asked for reform. Family Home rights and rights of same-sex couples is very popular with her and again she asks them the same way every time.
Findings is honestly so easy I was suspicious of doing it! It's quite short there's only so much you can say for it but she loves asking it and she seems to copy and paste her reports for that answer every year. There aren't that many cases in it and if you know the NZ and Australian cases for it I can't see how you'd lose any marks in that question!
Hope that helps
Have you sat contract, constitutional, EU or company? I'm doing those this time around and would love any advice!0 -
The exam really wasn't bad at all. I found it very predictable and the questions were worded pretty much exactly as they had been in the past. She says the same thing in her exam papers for certain questions every year so for most of the questions I followed what she said and I did grand! Succession obv is a must, you should know it inside out. Adverse possession is another must, it's a bit big but you could be looking at a problem Q this time around bc in March she asked for reform. Family Home rights and rights of same-sex couples is very popular with her and again she asks them the same way every time.
Findings is honestly so easy I was suspicious of doing it! It's quite short there's only so much you can say for it but she loves asking it and she seems to copy and paste her reports for that answer every year. There aren't that many cases in it and if you know the NZ and Australian cases for it I can't see how you'd lose any marks in that question!
Hope that helps
Have you sat contract, constitutional, EU or company? I'm doing those this time around and would love any advice!
I haven't learnt findings as on my grid it hasn't come up since Oct 2016 so I thought it might be a waste to learn?0 -
-
-
-
-
ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »• McCutcheon states “there is near universal reluctance” to order the SP of a contract for personal services due to: (i) the degree of court supervision; and (ii) courts will not compel a person to work for another where their relationship of trust and confidence no longer exists.
• Fry J. in De Francesco v Barnum remarked that ‘courts should be cautious about making an order for SP where it is a contract for a personal service in case they turn a contract for service into a contract for slavery.’
• While courts are reluctant to make orders that force a person to work with another, they have enforced orders for person NOT to work with anyone else:
Lumley v Wagner – D agreed to sing at P’s theatre (positive obligation) and nowhere else (negative obligation), however P attempted to go sing at another theatre for a larger fee. Court granted injunction but noted D could never be forced to honour the positive obligation.
• Keep Open Clauses – required to stay open for certain hours
Wanze Properties (Ireland) Ltd v Five Star Supermarket - granted an int. injunction compelling the defendant to continue trading in the plaintiff shopping centre during normal business hours.
^^ Those are from my notes... Only the Wanz case is within the 20th century so not too sure of any new cases..
Thank you so much! Yeah i can't find anything remotely modern either. Also found Rigby v Connell (from late 1800s, but was SP for personal service of getting an actor to perform in a play) 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
LawGirl3434 wrote: »Thank you so much! Yeah i can't find anything remotely modern either. Also found Rigby v Connell (from late 1800s, but was SP for personal service of getting an actor to perform in a play)
Just did a bit of digging and think she could be referring to Ahmed v HSE (2007) and Carroll v Dublin Bus (2005)- found on previous thread!
Carroll v Dublin Bus: obiter comments were expressing doubt over whether a court had the jurisdiction to order the specific performance of a contract for employment. Court concluded they possibly could but only if no difficulties would arise as a result of the order.
This was then applied in Ahmed v HSE. Despite the fact that relationship of trust and confidence still existed between the parties, the court refused to order specific performance of the contract of employment because there was potential for certain issues to arise as a result of the order and as the court could not foresee what these issues would be, they refused to order SP.0 -
ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »Just did a bit of digging and think she could be referring to Ahmed v HSE (2007) and Carroll v Dublin Bus (2005)- found on previous thread!
Carroll v Dublin Bus: obiter comments were expressing doubt over whether a court had the jurisdiction to order the specific performance of a contract for employment. Court concluded they possibly could but only if no difficulties would arise as a result of the order.
This was then applied in Ahmed v HSE. Despite the fact that relationship of trust and confidence still existed between the parties, the court refused to order specific performance of the contract of employment because there was potential for certain issues to arise as a result of the order and as the court could not foresee what these issues would be, they refused to order SP.
Thank you so much! Almost hoping it comes up now having all these cases So frustrating how the manuals just don't have them - especially as was a past question!
Another random equity Q, do campus oil principles apply to Quia Timet injunctions? Can't figure out what Szabo v ESAT Digiphone is saying on it0 -
-
-
LawGirl3434 wrote: »Thank you so much! Almost hoping it comes up now having all these cases So frustrating how the manuals just don't have them - especially as was a past question!
Another random equity Q, do campus oil principles apply to Quia Timet injunctions? Can't figure out what Szabo v ESAT Digiphone is saying on it
Haha yes would be handy if it came up now..
Campus Oil Principles
• Where the risk of danger occurring is undisputed, or where it is purely commercial interests at stake, it may be more applicable to use Campus Oil
• In National Irish Bank v RTE- D conceded it intended to publish harmful information about P . Shanley J considered the regular test more applicable than the stringent evidential burden, as there was no question there.
• As stated, Geoghegan stood away from Campus Oil in the first place for a combination of the above reason of evidence, and his distaste at measuring human lives against commercial matters.
^^ That's what I have about campus oil and quia timet.. Basically think Geoghegan said in Szabo there must be strong evidence of substantial risk of danger and that was the focus in that case but in other cases not involving risk to human life might use Campus Oil.. bit wishy washy but the general gist0 -
The exam really wasn't bad at all. I found it very predictable and the questions were worded pretty much exactly as they had been in the past. She says the same thing in her exam papers for certain questions every year so for most of the questions I followed what she said and I did grand! Succession obv is a must, you should know it inside out. Adverse possession is another must, it's a bit big but you could be looking at a problem Q this time around bc in March she asked for reform. Family Home rights and rights of same-sex couples is very popular with her and again she asks them the same way every time.
Findings is honestly so easy I was suspicious of doing it! It's quite short there's only so much you can say for it but she loves asking it and she seems to copy and paste her reports for that answer every year. There aren't that many cases in it and if you know the NZ and Australian cases for it I can't see how you'd lose any marks in that question!
Hope that helps
Have you sat contract, constitutional, EU or company? I'm doing those this time around and would love any advice!
Thank you so much, that's so helpful!
I've done Contract, Const., and Company. I've just EU and Land this sitting and then im finished (hopefully!!!)
Contract: Definitely not the worst. I think the key for contract is the past papers. Similar to what you said about land, they come up the same way over and over. It might be obvious but really know your case law and focus on the judgments. On my sitting of contract the exact same question that had come up previously came up, word for word so just focus on papers and you'll fly it!
Const.: it actually isn't the worst, I liked it. Thing is, the papers are terrifying! You could be reading them the night before and still not know what each question is asking, but it seems to be just the nature of constitutional, so when you open the paper first - don't panic. Take each question line by line and break it down. Going through past papers is daunting, but just keep going and answering each one without your notes to try and get more confident in what you know. When studying for it, I found researching the cases online gave me such a good understanding of what they were about, in a way that the manual sometimes doesn't.
Company: Again, not the worst. I don't know how I passed this one, as two of my questions were on topics I hadn't prepared for. I think Examinership was one of my qs, and I answered it solely from having the Companies Act beside me. Very fair marker I found!
You can do it!
(just realised I said they all "weren't the worst". Theyre all pretty eww, but in comparison to equity, they're not too bad. I think Equity is the devil!!)0 -
Thank you so much, that's so helpful!
I've done Contract, Const., and Company. I've just EU and Land this sitting and then im finished (hopefully!!!)
Contract: Definitely not the worst. I think the key for contract is the past papers. Similar to what you said about land, they come up the same way over and over. It might be obvious but really know your case law and focus on the judgments. On my sitting of contract the exact same question that had come up previously came up, word for word so just focus on papers and you'll fly it!
Const.: it actually isn't the worst, I liked it. Thing is, the papers are terrifying! You could be reading them the night before and still not know what each question is asking, but it seems to be just the nature of constitutional, so when you open the paper first - don't panic. Take each question line by line and break it down. Going through past papers is daunting, but just keep going and answering each one without your notes to try and get more confident in what you know. When studying for it, I found researching the cases online gave me such a good understanding of what they were about, in a way that the manual sometimes doesn't.
Company: Again, not the worst. I don't know how I passed this one, as two of my questions were on topics I hadn't prepared for. I think Examinership was one of my qs, and I answered it solely from having the Companies Act beside me. Very fair marker I found!
You can do it!
(just realised I said they all "weren't the worst". Theyre all pretty eww, but in comparison to equity, they're not too bad. I think Equity is the devil!!)
Brilliant thanks so much for this, definitely puts them in perspective for me. These are my second 4 so hopefully we can both celebrate an early Christmas present and be done!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement