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

scooby321

I failed Oct 19 because I confused Kerin's / Brien line with Cityview test in Q1... and now I'm afraid I'll do the same so if anyone has any pointers that would be great. brain is fried

LawBoy2018

What would be two privacy cases we could potentially drop into a personal rights question for Constitutional tomorrow?

iamanengine

scooby321 wrote: »

I failed Oct 19 because I confused Kerin's / Brien line with Cityview test in Q1... and now I'm afraid I'll do the same so if anyone has any pointers that would be great. brain is fried

Kerins/O'Brien - Privilege to comments made in either House of the Oireachtas, they are non-justiciable unless there is a particularly egregious attack on a person's rights as in Kerins. Also their internal rules are non-justiciable again unless there is an attack on constitutional rights as in Callely

Cityview Test - Non delegation doctrine, the Oireachtas can delegate some power to Ministers provided the principle Act lays down sufficient principles and policies such that the Minister is merely implementing the Act rather than law-making

That is off the top of my head so I could be wrong, if anyone wants to chip in fire away

ryansmith171

lawstudentirl wrote: »

Thanks, you too!

It says you have PM turned off it won’t let me send it to you ? Can you turn it on please

Hamerzan Sickles

What are people hoping for the case note? I'm zoning in on four or five 2019 cases and wishing for a miracle.

user115

For a casenote how much do people write like 2 pages okay say main issue describe a bit about facts and then set out what court actually decided? I suppose you would say as well if it changes the law in some way or just confirms it?

rightytighty

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

What would be two privacy cases we could potentially drop into a personal rights question for Constitutional tomorrow?

McGee and Norris

godfather2

user115 wrote: »

For a casenote how much do people write like 2 pages okay say main issue describe a bit about facts and then set out what court actually decided? I suppose you would say as well if it changes the law in some way or just confirms it?

Final part, maybe a few lines on significance of the decision

iamanengine

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

What are people hoping for the case note? I'm zoning in on four or five 2019 cases and wishing for a miracle.

Some of the big 2019 cases -

Kerins v McGuinness - Oireachtas
Zalewski v Minister for Justice and Equality - Locus Standi
Sweeney Ireland - Right to Silence
Shatter v Guerin - Fair Procedure
AC v Cork University Hospital - Liberty

user115

iamanengine wrote: »

Some of the big 2019 cases -

Kerins v McGuinness - Oireachtas
Zalewski v Minister for Justice and Equality - Locus Standi
Sweeney Ireland - Right to Silence
Shatter v Guerin - Fair Procedure
AC v Cork University Hospital - Liberty

I have a feeling it will be Kerins or Shatter, moreover Kerns, Also Mohan v Ireland was a case that got good bit of coverage Mohan is locus standi as well, I'm really hoping for full Q on locus standi unsure though cause it was essay in spring 2018, there has been few big cases since though

supercreative

Does anyone have a decent one- or two-line summary of Zalewski? I've read a couple of newspaper articles on it but really don't understand how it changes anything from Cahill v Sutton. Would be much appreciated!

TCPIP

supercreative wrote: »

Does anyone have a decent one- or two-line summary of Zalewski? I've read a couple of newspaper articles on it but really don't understand how it changes anything from Cahill v Sutton. Would be much appreciated!

It doesn't change, it strengthens. The rationale of the defence [and the HC] would be that by allowing him a fresh hearing with a new AO that he would no longer need to carry on with the constitutional challenge as his rights have been upheld but his argument was that there was nothing preventing the same thing happening again while the Act stood as it does.

user115

supercreative wrote: »

Does anyone have a decent one- or two-line summary of Zalewski? I've read a couple of newspaper articles on it but really don't understand how it changes anything from Cahill v Sutton. Would be much appreciated!

WRC decided to quash the decision of the adjudication officer for an "admin error" but it was actually significant enough. When it would be quashed it would be remitted for hearing to the same system again that he felt was in breach of his constitutional rights. The fact the decision was quashed HC tried to rule since the error no longer effected him then he was not allowed challenge it because it no longer existed. But the error really was the whole system and that did not change just because a decision was quashed and remitted.

scooby321

iamanengine wrote: »

Kerins/O'Brien - Privilege to comments made in either House of the Oireachtas, they are non-justiciable unless there is a particularly egregious attack on a person's rights as in Kerins. Also their internal rules are non-justiciable again unless there is an attack on constitutional rights as in Callely

Cityview Test - Non delegation doctrine, the Oireachtas can delegate some power to Ministers provided the principle Act lays down sufficient principles and policies such that the Minister is merely implementing the Act rather than law-making

That is off the top of my head so I could be wrong, if anyone wants to chip in fire away

You're definitely right with this. I just got mixed up and muddled non-delegation in with Kerins' committee of investigation. stupid mistake and just paranoid I'll do it again. Especially as trying to cram 16 topics (only 3 of which I managed so far)

Hamerzan Sickles

iamanengine wrote: »

Some of the big 2019 cases -

Kerins v McGuinness - Oireachtas
Zalewski v Minister for Justice and Equality - Locus Standi
Sweeney Ireland - Right to Silence
Shatter v Guerin - Fair Procedure
AC v Cork University Hospital - Liberty

I was actually covering all of these except for Sweeney. Great minds think alike iamanengine. If anyone has notes on Sweeney and wants to PM them to me, be my guest.

If I get lucky with this paper tomorrow I might actually pull this off.

TCPIP

To everyone doing Constitutional

https://youtu.be/8wwtbQXTugo?t=148

iamanengine

I'm calling it quits lads, brain can't do anymore. Need a relatively decent nights sleep or won't be able to function at the exam!

Good luck, see y'all on the other side

Edit - Haven’t quite gone yet, if someone gets a chance could they very briefly explain AC v Cork University Hospital to me?

My notes seem to say that the SC overturned the CoA, and that the first detention was unlawful but then 2nd detention after the wardship was granted was lawful? But yet it says that the granting of the wardship was unlawful?

If anyone could clear that up for me I would love you forever

godfather2

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm calling it quits lads, brain can't do anymore. Need a relatively decent nights sleep or won't be able to function at the exam!

Good luck, see y'all on the other side

Edit - Haven’t quite gone yet, if someone gets a chance could they very briefly explain AC v Cork University Hospital to me?

My notes seem to say that the SC overturned the CoA, and that the first detention was unlawful but then 2nd detention after the wardship was granted was lawful? But yet it says that the granting of the wardship was unlawful?

If anyone could clear that up for me I would love you forever

Criticised the wardship due to short period of time before hearing, lack of representation and non availability of legal aid in such instances.
Should have been an independent party to look out for her interests. Just because a ward of court or lacking in capacity does not mean you have no constitutional rights. Her fair procedure right not vindicated. Application flawed as a result.
Very much ad libbed above.

rightytighty

Good luck to all for constitutional!

isawitfirst

can anyone explain what the law is regarding successive squatter's and adverse possession?

lawgirl23

Quick question - sat criminal yesterday, thought it went okay. Had a look at the exam paper this morning and realised I answered the two four-part questions asking you to advise the DPP on charges to be brought, but instead of advising the DPP, I advised the client. Cardinal sin of not reading the question, I know, but I'm wondering if it will exclude me from getting any marks in those questions or if I'll be given marks for the information and then penalised because I advised the wrong person? Thanks!

mydogwentroof

lawgirl23 wrote: »

Quick question - sat criminal yesterday, thought it went okay. Had a look at the exam paper this morning and realised I answered the two four-part questions asking you to advise the DPP on charges to be brought, but instead of advising the DPP, I advised the client. Cardinal sin of not reading the question, I know, but I'm wondering if it will exclude me from getting any marks in those questions or if I'll be given marks for the information and then penalised because I advised the wrong person? Thanks!

You might lose a mark or two - once you identified the correct law I'd imagine you'll be ok

iamanengine

godfather2 wrote: »

Criticised the wardship due to short period of time before hearing, lack of representation and non availability of legal aid in such instances.
Should have been an independent party to look out for her interests. Just because a ward of court or lacking in capacity does not mean you have no constitutional rights. Her fair procedure right not vindicated. Application flawed as a result.
Very much ad libbed above.

Didn’t need it in the end, but I will honour my promise to love you forever

rightytighty

How was it? What came up?

iamanengine

rightytighty wrote: »

How was it? What came up?

1. Case note - I had Shatter v Guerin and McCrystal which was lovely
2. Non-Delegation, kind of tricky, was on the difference between Leontjava and O’Sullivan, Domestic v EU
3. Not sure what this was, maybe Equality?
4. Again not sure, effects of unconstitutionality/remedies or something
5. Kerins, Oireachtas, Non justiciability
6. Family
7. Admin of justice in public
8. absolutely no idea

I was lucky to get 5 but happy with the 5 I got though they were a little tricky

rightytighty

iamanengine wrote: »

1. Case note - I had Shatter v Guerin and McCrystal which was lovely
2. Non-Delegation, kind of tricky, was on the difference between Leontjava and O’Sullivan, Domestic v EU
3. Not sure what this was, maybe Equality?
4. Again not sure, effects of unconstitutionality/remedies or something
5. Kerins, Oireachtas, Non justiciability
6. Family
7. Admin of justice in public
8. absolutely no idea

I was lucky to get 5 but happy with the 5 I got though they were a little tricky

Nice, well done to those who called case note cases. Looks like a fair enough paper. Kerins finally appeared!

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

1. Case note - I had Shatter v Guerin and McCrystal which was lovely
2. Non-Delegation, kind of tricky, was on the difference between Leontjava and O’Sullivan, Domestic v EU
3. Not sure what this was, maybe Equality?
4. Again not sure, effects of unconstitutionality/remedies or something
5. Kerins, Oireachtas, Non justiciability
6. Family
7. Admin of justice in public
8. absolutely no idea

I was lucky to get 5 but happy with the 5 I got though they were a little tricky

I think/hope 3 was locus standi and property rights but could be completely wrong

8 was SOP judiciary: Buckley v AG Sinn Fein Funds act is the main case I used

Law1997

CiaranS93 wrote: »

I think/hope 3 was locus standi and property rights but could be completely wrong

8 was SOP judiciary: Buckley v AG Sinn Fein Funds act is the main case I used

I answered 3 on locus standi and property too

Law1997

Guys is it ok to do the case note q in constitutional like focus on the significance of the case but talk about other cases too?

Legal case

Hi does anyone have an up to date exam grid for Equity & Contract at this very late stage? Please. Only have exam reports up to spring 2019.

CiaranS93

Law1997 wrote: »

I answered 3 on locus standi and property too

Thank god! I started with equality then realised commercial entity can't invoke it and it's only to do with "facet of human personality" which quickly made me scratch it out haha

channing90

Legal case wrote: »

Hi does anyone have an up to date exam grid for Equity & Contract at this very late stage? Please.

I have equity, what’s your email

CiaranS93

Legal case wrote: »

Hi does anyone have an up to date exam grid for Equity & Contract at this very late stage? Please. Only have exam reports up to spring 2019.

I have contract send your email

iamanengine

Very very almost answered 3 on Equality!! Ended up doing the Family one instead so a lucky escape there for sure

Fair play to those who spotted, I actually knew Locus Standi fairly well which is unfortunate but shouldn't hold me back from a pass I think

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

Very very almost answered 3 on Equality!! Ended up doing the Family one instead so a lucky escape there for sure

Fair play to those who spotted, I actually knew Locus Standi fairly well which is unfortunate but shouldn't hold me back from a pass I think

I might have spotted it but don't think it will get me across the line unfortunately haha

nmurphy1441

CiaranS93 wrote: »

I have contract send your email

Can you send it to me too please? It’s the only one I’m missing, can’t find my copy anywhere!

CiaranS93

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Can you send it to me too please? It’s the only one I’m missing, can’t find my copy anywhere!

Yea inbox me your email address. It doesn't have October 19. But offer and acceptance didn't come up if that helps

iamanengine

Anyone doing Equity and Company?

How are you managing your time?

I'm thinking of studying company today, equity next two days and then company after the equity exam?

Captainsatnav

I'm just reading over a few posts on this thread and I just want to wish every person who contributes the very best. The questions and feelings and doubts you're having - I had the exact same when I was doing the blasted things from 2008 - 2011. Best Wishes, M

bobbyness

Captainsatnav wrote: »

I'm just reading over a few posts on this thread and I just want to wish every person who contributes the very best. The questions and feelings and doubts you're having - I had the exact same when I was doing the blasted things from 2008 - 2011. Best Wishes, M

Aaaawwww. Hit me right in the feels!

Captainsatnav

bobbyness wrote: »

Aaaawwww. Hit me right in the feels!

That's a tort

bobbyness

Captainsatnav wrote: »

That's a tort

Better get my claim in before they start capping personal injury claims!

user115

Was question 8 property rights cause a cause in action recognised as an enforceable prop right under art 43 in re art 26 health Bill 2004?

leavingcert17

How did people answer the family question? Overwhelmed but hoping I scraped a pass

Jeremiah25

Thought that was a tricky paper! Found it hard to indentify some of the issues asked. Anyone know what he's like as a marker (ie: awarding marks for discussing not totally relevant issues)?

godfather2

By any chance was the belinda question to do with declarations of unconstitutionality? No right to damages, the tax case and court not getting involved in tax payers money being used to pay refunds.
I completely winged that one. Hoping for a lucky break.

user115

leavingcert17 wrote: »

How did people answer the family question? Overwhelmed but hoping I scraped a pass

I talked about the fact constitution guards against unjust attack on marriage and the decision of state could be seen as such, mentioned cases bout def of marriage also brought in art 8 but noted not directly applicable said protected under 40.3 also for families and that the family protection in 41 and if they have children potential rights under 42a.... Glad constitutional is done, was tricky but not terrible

user115

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Thought that was a tricky paper! Found it hard to indentify some of the issues asked. Anyone know what he's like as a marker (ie: awarding marks for discussing not totally relevant issues)?

Meant to be fair marker so fingers crossed

godfather2

iamanengine wrote: »

Didn’t need it in the end, but I will honour my promise to love you forever

Any chance you are doing equity, contract or tort? I'll take the love but might need pointers for next three more lol.

iamanengine

leavingcert17 wrote: »

How did people answer the family question? Overwhelmed but hoping I scraped a pass

I talked about Art 41 and marriage and the differences between the marital family and unmarried families, mentioned Nicholau. Then I talked about residency rights, talked about EA v Minister for Justice and Gorry v Minister for Justice (couldn't remember the name for this one but referred to it.)

Then mentioned at the end if they did have a child it would be granted citizenship, referred to Osayande and Art 9

Briefly mentioned 42A and the rights of the child and how that might influence C further to grant residency if they did have a child