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

user115

Equity

For injunctions do people think it's safe enough to focus on Mareva, know little on Anton Pillar, then focus on Mandatory Interloc Injunctions? I had a look through exam papers til 2016/2015 and they are they only ones that seem to have come up. If I have overlooked some questions please let me know

rightytighty

How far along the process are people? Is anyone learning off yet or generally still making notes?

user115

rightytighty wrote: »

How far along the process are people? Is anyone learning off yet or generally still making notes?

I'm far from learning off, I moved on from Constitutional to Equity cause it was taking me way too long, must go back to Constitutional and do about 4 more topics. I'm really hoping Equity isn't too bad, seems alright so far. I only start learning off the week before the exam, has worked for me so far so hoping everything goes to plan. These are my last 2 so I'm really hoping I see the end of them at this sitting.

How are you set? When do you normally start learning off?

sm333

How long did it take people to hear back about getting passes carried forward under the new regulations? Emailed the form on Thursday but feeling more antsy the longer I ignore that subject (equity), just in case I have to sit it after all.

rightytighty

user115 wrote: »

I'm far from learning off, I moved on from Constitutional to Equity cause it was taking me way too long, must go back to Constitutional and do about 4 more topics. I'm really hoping Equity isn't too bad, seems alright so far. I only start learning off the week before the exam, has worked for me so far so hoping everything goes to plan. These are my last 2 so I'm really hoping I see the end of them at this sitting.

How are you set? When do you normally start learning off?

Ok that’s reassuring, I’m turning to my last 2 subjects now (EU and Tort) to try and learn them for 2 weeks and then I’ll start with Company and Criminal

sm333 wrote: »

How long did it take people to hear back about getting passes carried forward under the new regulations? Emailed the form on Thursday but feeling more antsy the longer I ignore that subject (equity), just in case I have to sit it after all.

Yeah I also applied, sent the form back two weeks ago Thursday, should we phone them?

sm333

rightytighty wrote: »

Ok that’s reassuring, I’m turning to my last 2 subjects now (EU and Tort) to try and learn them for 2 weeks and then I’ll start with Company and Criminal



Yeah I also applied, sent the form back two weeks ago Thursday, should we phone them?

I just got a reply a few minutes ago and my exemption has been granted!!

Would definitely email/call them to follow up as I only submitted my request last Thursday.

Also for anyone still wondering about timelines for responses mine took 4 working days (Thurs-Tues)

Thank you SO much to the people that posted about this here as I would have never found out otherwise and would have unnecessarily sat an extra exam

rightytighty

sm333 wrote: »

I just got a reply a few minutes ago and my exemption has been granted!!

Would definitely email/call them to follow up as I only submitted my request last Thursday.

Also for anyone still wondering about timelines for responses mine took 4 working days (Thurs-Tues)

Thank you SO much to the people that posted about this here as I would have never found out otherwise and would have unnecessarily sat an extra exam

Mine went to the wrong inbox folder, also approved haha

Louis Litt

user115 wrote: »

Equity

For injunctions do people think it's safe enough to focus on Mareva, know little on Anton Pillar, then focus on Mandatory Interloc Injunctions? I had a look through exam papers til 2016/2015 and they are they only ones that seem to have come up. If I have overlooked some questions please let me know

Unsure on this myself, as Mandatory Interloc Injunctions came up last time around im thinking about just going with Mareva and APO, but i'm unclear if you need to cover everything in order to be able to answer those topics fully. Any guidence from someone who's been through it would be great.

Law1997

Fellow at home studiers/sufferers -

How are you structuring your day? So far I’ve been ‘cramming’ in the mornings, looking at a second topic in the afternoon and doing a few papers in between. I’m fed up by the evening.

Any advice?

Breacnua

define cramming, as in u have ur notes finished?

DFMCD190384

user115 wrote: »

Equity

For injunctions do people think it's safe enough to focus on Mareva, know little on Anton Pillar, then focus on Mandatory Interloc Injunctions? I had a look through exam papers til 2016/2015 and they are they only ones that seem to have come up. If I have overlooked some questions please let me know

I wonder would Quia Timet be in the pipeline to make a reappearance?

DFMCD190384

Is 4 exams achievable? I'm freaking out and thinking of dropping one. I'm stressing that theres not even 4 weeks left.

Louis Litt

DFMCD190384 wrote: »

I wonder would Quia Timet be in the pipeline to make a reappearance?

it came up March 2019 so i'm hoping not...

Law1997

Breacnua wrote: »

define cramming, as in u have ur notes finished?

I do! By cramming I mean just learning off really

iamanengine

DFMCD190384 wrote: »

Is 4 exams achievable? I'm freaking out and thinking of dropping one. I'm stressing that theres not even 4 weeks left.

Do you have most of your notes done?

I'm doing 5 and just finishing up notes/starting to learn now.

DFMCD190384

iamanengine wrote: »

Do you have most of your notes done?

I'm doing 5 and just finishing up notes/starting to learn now.

Yeah I think I have all finished now. I'm just afraid that I don't have enough done I suppose but worrying that I won't get all learned that I have done. It's a conundrum 😔🥵😜

jewels652

Constitutional

If I was to drop a topic which one between the Oireachtas and the courts ?

supercreative

jewels652 wrote: »

Constitutional

If I was to drop a topic which one between the Oireachtas and the courts ?

Oireachtas has Kerins etc in it doesn't it? If so then imo keep that, I'd say we might get a question on it.

jewels652

Thank you. Would you be kind to give a summary of the keirn’s judgement please? My notes are not up to date

jewels652

Sorry I meant Kerins

supercreative

jewels652 wrote: »

Thank you. Would you be kind to give a summary of the keirn’s judgement please? My notes are not up to date

Here's the best I can do:

- Kerins called before Public Accounts Committee to explain various issues around Rehab, but several members of PAC went way beyond their remit and questioned her about stuff not disclosed in her original invitation - she was profoundly affected and became unwell as a result

- HC rejected her action, saying that the PAC wasn't compulsory (like the tribunal in Maguire v Ardagh was) and so they couldn't look at it

- Appealed to Supreme Court, which said that committees were entitled to Art 15 protection but they could examine the PAC's conduct where it had acted unfairly but the Oireachtas hadn't remedied it

- The Oireachtas, through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, had already found that the PAC's conduct was unlawful, so the court was able to point to this and hold that the PAC had treated Kerins unfairly

- Effectively the courts said that the primary role here in regulating these things was for the Oireachtas, but that the courts could step in if the Oireachtas didn't deal with it

- A question was raised as to whether an exception like that in Callely v Moylan could apply, but court said that while there was an argument that it could, they didn't need to decide that in this case

Hope this helps!

jewels652

supercreative wrote: »

Here's the best I can do:

- Kerins called before Public Accounts Committee to explain various issues around Rehab, but several members of PAC went way beyond their remit and questioned her about stuff not disclosed in her original invitation - she was profoundly affected and became unwell as a result

- HC rejected her action, saying that the PAC wasn't compulsory (like the tribunal in Maguire v Ardagh was) and so they couldn't look at it

- Appealed to Supreme Court, which said that committees were entitled to Art 15 protection but they could examine the PAC's conduct where it had acted unfairly but the Oireachtas hadn't remedied it

- The Oireachtas, through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, had already found that the PAC's conduct was unlawful, so the court was able to point to this and hold that the PAC had treated Kerins unfairly

- Effectively the courts said that the primary role here in regulating these things was for the Oireachtas, but that the courts could step in if the Oireachtas didn't deal with it

- A question was raised as to whether an exception like that in Callely v Moylan could apply, but court said that while there was an argument that it could, they didn't need to decide that in this case

Hope this helps!

Thank you so much 😊

iamanengine

DFMCD190384 wrote: »

Yeah I think I have all finished now. I'm just afraid that I don't have enough done I suppose but worrying that I won't get all learned that I have done. It's a conundrum ������

I wouldn't worry at this stage to be honest, you have loads of time to get the learning done. But everyone is different! I would say maybe stick with it now and see where you are in 2 weeks. If you are really feeling the squeeze then maybe drop one. But people always say to just give them all a go anyway. The experience of sitting an exam is invaluable in itself.

What subjects are you doing? The likes of Criminal and Property you can cram in no time at all!

DFMCD190384

iamanengine wrote: »

I wouldn't worry at this stage to be honest, you have loads of time to get the learning done. But everyone is different! I would say maybe stick with it now and see where you are in 2 weeks. If you are really feeling the squeeze then maybe drop one. But people always say to just give them all a go anyway. The experience of sitting an exam is invaluable in itself.

What subjects are you doing? The likes of Criminal and Property you can cram in no time at all!

I'm sitting Criminal, Property, Contract and Equity.

iamanengine

DFMCD190384 wrote: »

I'm sitting Criminal, Property, Contract and Equity.

The four nicest subjects imo! You'll be grand.

I did Criminal, Property, Contract and Tort last time and failed Tort, wish I did Equity instead!

rightytighty

DFMCD190384 wrote: »

I'm sitting Criminal, Property, Contract and Equity.

They are probably the smallest four in fairness

DFMCD190384

rightytighty wrote: »

They are probably the smallest four in fairness

Thanks.

I think it's just daunting because I dont know what to expect.

user115

Louis Litt wrote: »

Unsure on this myself, as Mandatory Interloc Injunctions came up last time around im thinking about just going with Mareva and APO, but i'm unclear if you need to cover everything in order to be able to answer those topics fully. Any guidence from someone who's been through it would be great.

I think they all sort of link in, you need to know the Campus Oil test for prohibitory injunctions and then there was a split on how courts approach mandatory interloc injunctions as some used Campus Oil principles and then others considered different factors. Then they arrived at a fairly settled approach over the last number of years whereby focus will be on if there is any injustice done but I think the principles in Campus Oil are still relevant in that it has been slightly modified and then add in the injustice point.

I reckon that Mareva will come up as it hasn't been up since A2018 as far as I can see. Still covering the whole lot though as you never really know and would not want to leave myself short

mariussulla1977

Hi Guys

Do any of you have exam grids for the following:

Contract
Criminal
Equity
Property

Would appreciate the help

Aoaoaoao2019

Does anyone have sample answers for Equity? Can swap for others, thanks!

sm333

Does anyone have an up to date grid for Constitutional or Contract? Mine only goes up to March 2018 so would be seriously appreciated for narrowing down topics.

jewels652

Eu

What are people covering for Eu? I am thinking of leaving competition out and do preliminary reference procedure. Any thoughts?
The topics I’ll be covering:

Direct effect /member state liability
Goods
Workers
equality
citizenship
Principles
Institutions

Principles and institutions came up last sitting so no sure if am doing the right thing by covering them.

Again any thoughts ? I could do with some advice.

Thanks

luimneachabu73

Criminal

In relation to problem questions, I'm having difficulties regarding when to use Murder / Manslaughter / Assault / Endangerment.

If the facts state someone has died, I'm guessing you always discuss Murder and Manslaughter (I could be wrong here). And even if they don't die, but death was intended, murder is still discussed. Manslaughter can only be discussed if someone dies, I feel.

Re Assault my take is if they don't die, this is when you talk about this?

And re Endangerment, I really don't know. I know you'd use it if the facts show someone has done something idiotic such as throw an item from a bridge that strikes a vehicle, but that's about it.

Could anyone shine light on when is the right time to use these? Thanks.

supercreative

luimneachabu73 wrote: »

Criminal

In relation to problem questions, I'm having difficulties regarding when to use Murder / Manslaughter / Assault / Endangerment.

If the facts state someone has died, I'm guessing you always discuss Murder and Manslaughter (I could be wrong here). And even if they don't die, but death was intended, murder is still discussed. Manslaughter can only be discussed if someone dies, I feel.

Re Assault my take is if they don't die, this is when you talk about this?

And re Endangerment, I really don't know. I know you'd use it if the facts show someone has done something idiotic such as throw an item from a bridge that strikes a vehicle, but that's about it.

Could anyone shine light on when is the right time to use these? Thanks.

Not sure about the others but if death was intended and the person does not die you'd look at attempted murder rather than murder!

stressssedout

Does anyone have a companies act that they are selling? Or lending out?

Jeremiah25

Would I be correct in saying that the EU examiner changed in 2015? Did the subjects which appaear change drastically as a result?

I have some stuff up as far as 2015 but questioning its usefulness now!!

iamanengine

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Would I be correct in saying that the EU examiner changed in 2015? Did the subjects which appaear change drastically as a result?

I have some stuff up as far as 2015 but questioning its usefulness now!!

Had a quick look at my grid and it seems generally consistent throughout...the only thing that kind of sticks out is that Sources came up every sitting from 2012 onward except it hasn't been on the last 4.

Infringement seems to have come up quite a lot in the past but hasn't been on since March 16.

QueenBeeLC

Hi i haven’t started looking at notes yet at all. I’m sitting constitutional and equity, failed both last time. Do you think I’ll have time?
Any tips for either subject? I know I can’t cut down

Jeremiah25

iamanengine wrote: »

Had a quick look at my grid and it seems generally consistent throughout...the only thing that kind of sticks out is that Sources came up every sitting from 2012 onward except it hasn't been on the last 4.

Infringement seems to have come up quite a lot in the past but hasn't been on since March 16.

Yeah I noticed that too! Hopefully I can still work off some of the pre-2015 material so!

What topics are you covering if you don't mind me asking?

iamanengine

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Yeah I noticed that too! Hopefully I can still work off some of the pre-2015 material so!

What topics are you covering if you don't mind me asking?

Institutions
Sources
General Principles
Free Movement of Workers
Free Movement of Goods
Direct Effect/MS Liability
Judicial Review
Citizenship
Equality

That's what I have notes done for so far. Not sure if I should add more or if that is enough to cover me. You?

Jeremiah25

iamanengine wrote: »

Institutions
Sources
General Principles
Free Movement of Workers
Free Movement of Goods
Direct Effect/MS Liability
Judicial Review
Citizenship
Equality

That's what I have notes done for so far. Not sure if I should add more or if that is enough to cover me. You?

I have the same minus sources, also looking at supremacy & competition law too.

Hopefelly we'll be all good!!

jus_me

What are people covering for tort? Any help appreciated

PerryMason2020

luimneachabu73 wrote: »

Criminal

In relation to problem questions, I'm having difficulties regarding when to use Murder / Manslaughter / Assault / Endangerment.

If the facts state someone has died, I'm guessing you always discuss Murder and Manslaughter (I could be wrong here). And even if they don't die, but death was intended, murder is still discussed. Manslaughter can only be discussed if someone dies, I feel.

Re Assault my take is if they don't die, this is when you talk about this?

And re Endangerment, I really don't know. I know you'd use it if the facts show someone has done something idiotic such as throw an item from a bridge that strikes a vehicle, but that's about it.

Could anyone shine light on when is the right time to use these? Thanks.

You wouldn't necessarily need to always discuss murder. When you're looking at a problem question, try and see what it is telling you about the mens rea of the crime. For murder, there has to be intention. If that is not there then it is a manslaughter conviction. You then need to look at what type of manslaughter - voluntary or involuntary.

E.g. problem q about the guy who was assaulted on his way home, went home and then headed back out to find his friends but took a knife with him to protect them. He encounters the people who assaulted him and they assault him again, he goes after them with the knife and kills one of them. For this, I think you would discuss murder and also manslaughter.

In the advise the DPP type qs, the one about the girl being killed when the funfair ride broke, this would be gross negligence manslaughter so there would be no need to discuss murder.

In the context of a murder, you can mention assault if it is present as part of the defendant's actions.

Endangerment is pretty much as you've described from what I can see.

I'm open to correction on the above, though.

rightytighty

For tort, specifically re Duty of Care, are Good Samaritans/volunteers ever asked?

rightytighty

jus_me wrote: »

What are people covering for tort? Any help appreciated

I’m going with

Negligence (all of it basically)
Trespass to Person
Trespass to Land/Nuisance/Rylands
Vicarious Liability
Defective Products
Damages
Occupiers Liability
Professional Negligence
Passing Off
Limitation of Actions
Liability for Animals/Fire

iamanengine

rightytighty wrote: »

For tort, specifically re Duty of Care, are Good Samaritans/volunteers ever asked?

It came up last sitting

Hamerzan Sickles

rightytighty wrote: »

For tort, specifically re Duty of Care, are Good Samaritans/volunteers ever asked?

It came up last sitting as part of a PQ that also contained medical negligence(?).

Lcork23

Just need some guidence regarding the property exam do you think it would be ok to leave out Landlord and Tenant or am I making a stupid move?

Law1997

What are people doing for contract?
Finding it huge and overwhelming
Maybe I’m overthinking

Law1997

Lcork23 wrote: »

Just need some guidence regarding the property exam do you think it would be ok to leave out Landlord and Tenant or am I making a stupid move?

I think if you don’t do that, then definitely do mortgages. I’m doing land lord and tenant tho - my brain cannot handle mortgages