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

iamanengine

Dj23 wrote: »

Can anyone clarify easements by prescription? My manual seems to have gone very complicated with a transitional period where the old rules and new rules might still apply and can't seem to get my head around it. Also, the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows is totally gone isn't it?

Rule in Wheeldon v Burrows is replaced by S.40 LCLRA.

Statutory Prescription - Old rules replaced by Ss. 33-39 LCLRA. Originally the old rules were to apply until 2012. Under the old rules you could get an easement after 20 years prescription, so say your easement started in 1990, you would have 19 years user by 2009, the old rules would still apply for you in 2010 and you could acquire an easement.

However, that meant that from 2012 - 2021 no method of prescription existed as under the new rules you need 12 year user and starting in 2009, the first year you would have built up 12 years user would be 2021. S.38 of Civil Law Misc Provisions Act 2011 fixed this by extending the transition period to 2021. Now the old rules apply until 2021.

So if you built up a 12 year user period starting on 2009 you can apply using the new rules from 2021 onwards. If you have a 20 year user period built up before 2021 you can use the old rules.

Hope that makes sense! I did this yesterday, it's really confusing initially but once you wrap your head around it it's grand.

Dj23

iamanengine wrote: »

Rule in Wheeldon v Burrows is replaced by S.40 LCLRA.

Statutory Prescription - Old rules replaced by Ss. 33-39 LCLRA. Originally the old rules were to apply until 2012. Under the old rules you could get an easement after 20 years prescription, so say your easement started in 1990, you would have 19 years user by 2009, the old rules would still apply for you in 2010 and you could acquire an easement.

However, that meant that from 2012 - 2021 no method of prescription existed as under the new rules you need 12 year user and starting in 2009, the first year you would have built up 12 years user would be 2021. S.38 of Civil Law Misc Provisions Act 2011 fixed this by extending the transition period to 2021. Now the old rules apply until 2021.

So if you built up a 12 year user period starting on 2009 you can apply using the new rules from 2021 onwards. If you have a 20 year user period built up before 2021 you can use the old rules.

Hope that makes sense! I did this yesterday, it's really confusing initially but once you wrap your head around it it's grand.

Perfect thanks, and am I correct in saying there isn't a huge amount of case law needed for this? I have a couple to show what is meant by 'as of right' and Re E.P. currently.

sbbyrne

Would anyone have the sample answer to Property Law, March 2019, Question 2(b)- Co Ownership by any chance? Similar/identical questions have cropped up before in past exam papers - its where two people in business together, one man has an affair with the others wife, and the other then wants to force sale of the property or have the other guy pay him rent. V dramatic...

I have the examiner report, but Id like to see how it should be answered, if anyone could help I would be so so soooo grateful!

lisac223

Would anyone have sample answers in Constitutional for September 2015? There's a couple of questions that I can't figure out how the issues match the facts! Would really appreciate it and can swap for material in every other subject thank you :-)

Silence88

Is anyone else still waiting on their exam number from the law society?

Sineaddh

sbbyrne wrote: »

Would anyone have the sample answer to Property Law, March 2019, Question 2(b)- Co Ownership by any chance? Similar/identical questions have cropped up before in past exam papers - its where two people in business together, one man has an affair with the others wife, and the other then wants to force sale of the property or have the other guy pay him rent. V dramatic...

I have the examiner report, but Id like to see how it should be answered, if anyone could help I would be so so soooo grateful!

I’m no help sorry but if you receive one I’d really appreciate you sending it on if you could please!

sbbyrne

Silence88 wrote: »

Is anyone else still waiting on their exam number from the law society?

I'm still waiting as well. It'll probably be next week at some stage, they're always late enough sending them out

niamh1612

Has anybody here passed contract/currently doing it? I am struggling so much, is it a case of literally learning the whole course?! is there ANYTHING I can leave out?

Olliepollie

sbbyrne wrote: »

I'm still waiting as well. It'll probably be next week at some stage, they're always late enough sending them out

I actually spoke to the Law Society on Tuesday and was advised that the letters were being sent out that day. I received mine yesterday so probably should arrive very shortly if not already.

Olliepollie

Property:

As regards finding, am I right in saying that the freehold owner has the third best title after the finder and true owner?

Or is the case that it is the occupier of the land who holds the third best title? My manual isn't very clear!

Many thanks

JohnsKite

does anyone have really condensed land notes on succession and land and tenant that they'd be willing to share? I thought I had them right, but memorising what I have is a nightmare for some reason, and I really don't want to have to do them up again.

Louis Litt

COMPANY

Can anyone shed somelight on the position of Single Economic Entity following the DCC v Fyffes SC decision? I seem to be getting contracsting viewsd from every source i look at?

SwD

Louis Litt wrote: »

COMPANY

Can anyone shed somelight on the position of Single Economic Entity following the DCC v Fyffes SC decision? I seem to be getting contracsting viewsd from every source i look at?

There exists doubt over the single economic entity ground in Ireland.

As you are aware, the principle was discussed in detail in Fyffes v DCC where it was held that a company cannot sell shares if one of its directors was in possession of price sensitive information. Therefore, in order to succeed the plaintiff had to show that the group was a single economic entity so that the knowledge of James Flavin as director of one company in the group could be imputed to the group as a whole. It was held that in order to treat the companies as one it had to be shown that:

• There was a factual identification of the acts of the companies; and
• Not to treat the companies as a SEE would be to allow the company to evade its obligations

By way of contrast, the case of Allied Irish Coal Supplies Ltd. v. Powell, the courts had reasserted the principal of separate legal personality and refused to treat the defendants as a SEE.

Clearly, much will depend on the facts of each case and the principle in Saloman will not be lightly disregarded.

DUMSURFER

What are people doing for company?

I'm completely last minute.com at the moment and have only done:

- Directors
- Restriction
- Receivership
- SLP

Intend to get as much of Share Transfer and Corporate Borrowing finished today. What are people doing outside of that or recommend I should consider doing after that?

iamanengine

There is so much content to cover in Criminal holy **** :mad:

jus_me

niamh1612 wrote: »

Has anybody here passed contract/currently doing it? I am struggling so much, is it a case of literally learning the whole course?! is there ANYTHING I can leave out?

I'd love an answer to this too!!

Daly29

Ugh, really struggling with the volume of doing 5. Swap request :-) I have material (manuals, grids, samples, etc.) for all. Was wondering if anyone would swap Lawschool.ie material/notes for EU/Contract. Little specific but maybe someone has those notes :-) Found them really useful before.

user115

Tort

What do you think of just covering the following:
-Standard and duty care
-Causation, remoteness and resipsa
-Damages
-Defamation
-Trespass to person only (not doing land, have not seen it up in ages, let me know if you think it's important)
-Nuisance
-Ryland and Fletcher
-Product liability
-Professional negligence
-Limitation of actions

Might also do:
-Vicarious
-Occupier

But very caught for time thinking I could be screwed if I don't do extra 2, if anyone has condensed notes on Vicarious and Occupier I have condensed notes on company topics, my notes for tort are all handwritten so you prob would't be able to read them!

Kallyann1

Hi,

I passed the FE1s in two sittings in 2018/2019. If anyone wants any advice/ help or notes please dont be afraid to contact me.

114404392{at}umail.ucc.ie

I know how daunting they can be so i will try and get back to you ASAP.

Bassadd

A few friends of mine are saying that the pass 3 rule is being removed, has anyone else hear rumblings of this?

scooby321

Wondering if anyone knows the case citation, I don't know the name of the case but in the area of Rights of the Child in the area of Family where a Hungarian father split with the mother, moved to Ireland and tried to keep the child here?

LawGirl3434

EU:

Can anyone just clear up for me art 30/110 distinction? I get one is a CEE and one tax, but in a problem q would you use the likes of Denkavit and Milk Suppliers to identify which one it was? Or am I way off?

supercreative

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

EU:

Can anyone just clear up for me art 30/110 distinction? I get one is a CEE and one tax, but in a problem q would you use the likes of Denkavit and Milk Suppliers to identify which one it was? Or am I way off?

Denkavit and Milk Suppliers you can definitely use, Michailidis also provides a helpful three part test: Art 110 applies if (a) the tax applies indiscriminately to domestic and foreign goods, (b) it arises from an identical chargeable event, and (c) it occurs at the same marketing stage.

LawGirl3434

supercreative wrote: »

Denkavit and Milk Suppliers you can definitely use, Michailidis also provides a helpful three part test: Art 110 applies if (a) the tax applies indiscriminately to domestic and foreign goods, (b) it arises from an identical chargeable event, and (c) it occurs at the same marketing stage.

Have that too thank you! So in a problem Q (from looking at his marking scheme) seems he wants you to determine whether it’s 30 or 110 (can’t be both obviously), so you’d work through cases then exceptions and you’d be done?

Thanks so much for your help - just can’t get my head around this for some reason!

iamanengine

Anyone have a grid for criminal or know what came up last two sittings?

My grid goes up to March 2018.

Smiley283

What topics for EU are everyone learning? I am really starting to panic about it and the contract law exam.

LawGirl3434

jus_me wrote: »

I'd love an answer to this too!!

I passed contract last sitting and was my highest grade. I tried to write out some general tips in the hope they might help you a little bit:

People go on that the examiner likes really short/ concise answers - I don't think that's true, think thats people kinda scaremongering and overcomplicating things (just my opinion from viewing my scripts). I felt from looking at my paper that once you had the right points, she didn't care how you said them and gave marks really generously.

Also - she's not asking you to reinvent the wheel. What I mean from this is she doesn't look for loads and loads of cases or an in-depth analysis in the way the likes of Constitutional or EU might. I felt in that regard it was more akin to Criminal.

If you're confused about any legislation/ concept - google search it and you'll be guaranteed the big corporate firms have FAQ pages to explain it. I found these so handy as they explained concepts in plain english and in the language you'd use to advise a client in a problem question.

Also she likes to literally copy and paste questions from previous papers even if they were up the year before.

With regards to leaving stuff out, I can't remember exactly but I'm sure I didn't cover everything - think I left out a few chapters I just didn't like so it is possible for sure.

Jenosul

user115 wrote: »

Tort

What do you think of just covering the following:
-Standard and duty care
-Causation, remoteness and resipsa
-Damages
-Defamation
-Trespass to person only (not doing land, have not seen it up in ages, let me know if you think it's important)
-Nuisance
-Ryland and Fletcher
-Product liability
-Professional negligence
-Limitation of actions

Might also do:
-Vicarious
-Occupier

But very caught for time thinking I could be screwed if I don't do extra 2, if anyone has condensed notes on Vicarious and Occupier I have condensed notes on company topics, my notes for tort are all handwritten so you prob would't be able to read them!

Sounds ok. It is similar to what I am doing.

Occupier Liability. Basics know the Occupiers liability Act 1995 governs it. 4 catoegory of entrant. Visitor, tresspasser and license or contractual entrant.

cases McNamara v ESB- 11 yr old boy tresspasser. Case set the ball rolling as to whether there should be liability for tresspassers.

Under S2 Visitors are mentioned. They are people you invite onto your property like family ad friends.

Newman v Cogan: Planitiff is visitor, his parents visit. He tripped shattered glass on door pannel and ultimately looses an eye. Held by O'Neill J not liable. The Homeowner would have believed the glass panel was suitable everthough a tradesman who gave evidence said it wasn't.

Heaves v Westmeath County Council. Plaintiff slipped on mossy steps. It was held that gardener asked expert advice about moss problem and took reasonable steps. Held the Defendant took reasonable care.

Vega v Cullen: Defendant doing maintance on roof. He left ladder at 45 degree angle. Ladder also on uneven ground. Plaintiff an adult man of 55 went up the ladder to have a conversation. He fell. Court held the plaintiff was 30% neg himself (contribuitary neg).

Weir Rodgers v SF Trust:
Example of recreational user. She fell off cliff in Donegal as he was admiring the views. She held the danger or the drop was hidden and not visable. Held that 25% neg herself as an accident like this could be foreseeable.

Tresspassers
Williams v TP constrution: work being done shopping centre He was general manager and decided to climb the ladder when the worker were on break. He fell. He claimed the ladder should have been tied. Held: Owed lesser duty as he was a tresspasser and was not invited so there was no reckless disgreard.

Tresspassers: McNamara v ESB: The 11 yr old


Under s4 of Act:
occupier owes same duty to tresspassers as to recreational users
All circumstances will be looked at by court to determine if reckless disregard was present.


Hope this helps brief summary. You should be grand! Just name in the question which type of user it is etc. Good luck. Nutshells are good if you can get your hands on them.

Jenosul

Hey everyone.

Hope study is going good.

Just looking for some help from someone please. I was wondering can anyone tell me what topics came up last sitting in Tort, Equity and Property? I have exam papers apart from last year. Thank you!

iamanengine

Jenosul wrote: »

Hey everyone.

Hope study is going good.

Just looking for some help from someone please. I was wondering can anyone tell me what topics came up last sitting in Tort, Equity and Property? I have exam papers apart from last year. Thank you!

iamanengine wrote: »

The March Tort paper was -

Q1 Causation
Q2 Medical Negligence
Q3 Infliction of Emotional Distress - Tort in Wilkinson v Downton
Q4 Objectives of Tort
Q5 Liability of Public Authorities
Q6 Employers Liability
Q7 Defamation
Q8 Damages

March Tort Paper ^