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

iamanengine

Longshot Equity prediction -

Q1. Mareva
Q2. DMC
Q3. Charitable/Cy-pres
Q4. Note - Satisfaction, Trusteeship, Strong v Bird
Q5. Undue Influence
Q6. 3 Certainties
Q7. Advancement
Q8. Secret Trusts

EmmaO94

iamanengine wrote: »

Longshot Equity prediction -

Q1. Mareva
Q2. DMC
Q3. Charitable/Cy-pres
Q4. Note - Satisfaction, Trusteeship, Strong v Bird
Q5. Undue Influence
Q6. 3 Certainties
Q7. Advancement
Q8. Secret Trusts

This would be a dream come true!

spygirl

Similar but am also adding in the estoppel with a focus on unconscionability test. I have no idea why. Feeling suspicious.

iamanengine

spygirl wrote: »

Similar but am also adding in the estoppel with a focus on unconscionability test. I have no idea why. Feeling suspicious.

I was debating putting prop estoppel in there too, do have a feeling it might come up but just didn’t make the prediction cut! Probably wishful thinking on my part to get a 3 certainties or secret trusts Q

An unconscionable based Q would be nice though

JimmyJazzz

Law1997 wrote: »

Thank you so much it’s a lot clearer now! excellent example of the county council - thank you

No problem at all ðŸ‘ðŸ¼

leavingcert17

iamanengine wrote: »

Longshot Equity prediction -

Q1. Mareva
Q2. DMC
Q3. Charitable/Cy-pres
Q4. Note - Satisfaction, Trusteeship, Strong v Bird
Q5. Undue Influence
Q6. 3 Certainties
Q7. Advancement
Q8. Secret Trusts

They would be lovely, why not man inj since new case?

user115

For Equity I'm focusing on:

- Injunctions interloc and mareva
- Recission and IU
- CHaritable and cy pres
- Secret trusts
- Prop Estoppel
- 3 certs
- DMC
- Satisfaction
- trusteeship

Have notes done for SP but don't think it's gonna come up.

On interloc injunctions I've read up on Merke Sharpe v Clonmel, but is it relevant to talk about that in mandatory interloc injunctions? I'm so confused about it. Injunctions wrecking my head all evening has put me off doing the question if I have a choice.

user115

leavingcert17 wrote: »

They would be lovely, why not man inj since new case?

She has been asking Mareva's alot if look through reports, last year she asked mand inter in autumn and qui timet in spring, in 2018 she asked mareva in both sittings and in previous years it's often on. I'm really hoping anton pillars don't appear I'm not covering them but they have been asked and have not been up now in a while. Would so love if I had choice not to do q on injunction

leavingcert17

user115 wrote: »

She has been asking Mareva's alot if look through reports, last year she asked mand inter in autumn and qui timet in spring, in 2018 she asked mareva in both sittings and in previous years it's often on. I'm really hoping anton pillars don't appear I'm not covering them but they have been asked and have not been up now in a while. Would so love if I had choice not to do q on injunction

I’m hoping I can avoid injunctions as well. I’m not covering anton pillar but gonna try get brief summary of most other chaps in Tomorrow (hopeful thinking) I’m off to bed now, and up at 6.. woo

JCormac

20082014 wrote: »

TORT

Whats peoples opinion on covering the below for the exam?

Defamation
Res Ipsa Loquiter
Animal and Fire

I am unsure whether to cover them or not. I haven't even looked at them so it would be learning from scratch and unsure if they are even likely to come up! Trying not to waste my time covering unnecessary topics (if thats even a thing!!)

Defamation has come up the last four sittings now so if it came up again it would be the fifth sitting in a row. Personally I had previously covered it earlier in my studying but doubt I'll be covering it again for that reason. Would love to hear what other people think of the Defamation/exam situation at present though?

Res Ipsa is a solid shout, just to have yourself covered. It's not that long a topic if I remember correctly.

I'd cover Liability for Animals on the same basis as Res Ipsa. It could possibly come up as part of a Q

JCormac

EU

For the Free Movements - Does anybody know how frequently Free movement of Services (FMS) come up as part of the FM of Workers question?

Haven't had time to cover FMS and would be super grateful if someone had like a page summary of the essentials of FMS or even the main cases if that's all that's needed. Trying to cut topics is a tricky business

I can trade whatever notes I have!

isawitfirst

Is there a different EU examiner this year or something? Just because the CC night before notes says "unlikely with this examiner" re free movement of services, and I'm just wondering if they mean this examiner is a different one or something

isawitfirst

mydogwentroof wrote: »

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

JCormac wrote: »

EU

For the Free Movements - Does anybody know how frequently Free movement of Services (FMS) come up as part of the FM of Workers question?

Haven't had time to cover FMS and would be super grateful if someone had like a page summary of the essentials of FMS or even the main cases if that's all that's needed. Trying to cut topics is a tricky business

I can trade whatever notes I have!

The CC night before notes are very good on that topic

https://citycolleges.ie/app/uploads/Night-Before-Notes-EU.pdf

nmurphy1441

Contract

Did discharge of contracts come up on the last sitting?

rightytighty

JCormac wrote: »

Defamation has come up the last four sittings now so if it came up again it would be the fifth sitting in a row. Personally I had previously covered it earlier in my studying but doubt I'll be covering it again for that reason. Would love to hear what other people think of the Defamation/exam situation at present though?

Res Ipsa is a solid shout, just to have yourself covered. It's not that long a topic if I remember correctly.

I'd cover Liability for Animals on the same basis as Res Ipsa. It could possibly come up as part of a Q

I won’t be covering defamation, employers liability, or professional negligence

mydogwentroof

user115 wrote: »

She has been asking Mareva's alot if look through reports, last year she asked mand inter in autumn and qui timet in spring, in 2018 she asked mareva in both sittings and in previous years it's often on. I'm really hoping anton pillars don't appear I'm not covering them but they have been asked and have not been up now in a while. Would so love if I had choice not to do q on injunction

What's the new case?

mydogwentroof

spygirl wrote: »

Similar but am also adding in the estoppel with a focus on unconscionability test. I have no idea why. Feeling suspicious.

I'd say estoppel will come up.

iamanengine

mydogwentroof wrote: »

What's the new case?

Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp v Clonmel Healthcare - Adequacy of damages is to be considered as part of the BOC rather than separately.

It's not a huge deal but it's still significant

Jeremiah25

Anything major missing from this lot?

3 C's, DMC, Mareva, UI, Charitable/Resulting/Secret Trusts, Estoppel, Tracing & Specific Performance?

leavingcert17

Would it be safe to leave out injunctions apart from mareva and maxims, quistclose, tracing and covered the rest?

EAA123

Hi,

could anyone please give me some insight to the three certainties question in oct 17 q.3

the line at the end about "the ballygrange historical society residuary clause" . In my book the answer is done out in relation to non-purpose trusts but the rest of the question is in relation to three certs ??

Kellyg248

Just wondering if anyone would have a link or the summary of Quinlivan v ODea?

...and many thanks to those who are posting. I'm new here and the information is priceless!!

Jeremiah25

EAA123 wrote: »

Hi,

could anyone please give me some insight to the three certainties question in oct 17 q.3

the line at the end about "the ballygrange historical society residuary clause" . In my book the answer is done out in relation to non-purpose trusts but the rest of the question is in relation to three certs ??

You would have to discuss the difficulties regards the gift to an unincorporate entity, either leaving it on trust to the members of the assiciation or the contract holding theory.

I think that's the case requires but open to any correction!

EAA123

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

You would have to discuss the difficulties regards the gift to an unincorporate entity, either leaving it on trust to the members of the assiciation or the contract holding theory.

I think that's the case requires but open to any correction!

Thank you.

Hopefully the three certs comes up as an essay rather than a problem

leavingcert17

EAA123 wrote: »

Thank you.

Hopefully the three certs comes up as an essay rather than a problem

Same

jewels652

Eu

For competition law what level of detail is required for the leniency programs part ? I have done the main sub heading under art 101 and just a short summary on leniency. Is that enough or should I know leniency well?

Tía

iamanengine

iamanengine wrote: »

Did someone say earlier that you don't need manifest disadvantage for presumed undue influence anymore or did I imagine that?

Or is that just in relation to banks once there is a non-commercial element?

Anyone?

EAA123

iamanengine wrote: »

Anyone?

I think so

irish courts are more concerned with the substantial benefit obtained by the stronger party

why would a wife or whoever become a surety when it solely benefits the other person

mydogwentroof

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Anything major missing from this lot?

3 C's, DMC, Mareva, UI, Charitable/Resulting/Secret Trusts, Estoppel, Tracing & Specific Performance?

Imposing a constructive trust on a 3rd party

supercreative

Contract

Does anyone know whether the provisions about services in s39 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 are conditions or warranties? The Act itself doesn't actually seem to say.

nmurphy1441

supercreative wrote: »

Contract

Does anyone know whether the provisions about services in s39 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 are conditions or warranties? The Act itself doesn't actually seem to say.

As far as I know they can be both and they are implied by statute so that’s very significant for the consumer.

Jeremiah25

Any company predictions/main topics my good people?

mydogwentroof

supercreative wrote: »

Contract

Does anyone know whether the provisions about services in s39 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 are conditions or warranties? The Act itself doesn't actually seem to say.

Conditions

Lawgrad101

Would I be covered knowing :

Interlocutory Injunctions, Mareva Injunctions, Trustees Duties, Charitable Trusts and Cy Pres, Undue Influence, Prop Estoppel, Strong v Bird, The Presumption of Advancement, The Three Certainties, Doctrine of Satisfaction and Secret Trusts?

Any advice appreciated!

CMUL

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Contract

Did discharge of contracts come up on the last sitting?

It came up as kind of a 3 part to discuss breach of contract for repudiation, anticipatory and innominate term.

CMUL

Lawgrad101 wrote: »

Would I be covered knowing :

Interlocutory Injunctions, Mareva Injunctions, Trustees Duties, Charitable Trusts and Cy Pres, Undue Influence, Prop Estoppel, Strong v Bird, The Presumption of Advancement, The Three Certainties, Doctrine of Satisfaction and Secret Trusts?

Any advice appreciated!

Strong v bird on last paper so doubtful it will reappear. She doesn't usually repeat the part qs.

Caroline Hamblyn

Thanks reya I'll mail you my email address now. Thanks

lawgrad15

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

As far as I know they can be both and they are implied by statute so that’s very significant for the consumer.

That's correct - can be conditions or warranties i.e. are akin to an innominate term

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

Anyone?

Yes some clarified earlier.

Manifest disadvantage is used by English courts. Ireland is based off substantial benefit and independent legal advice

CiaranS93

Lawgrad101 wrote: »

Would I be covered knowing :

Interlocutory Injunctions, Mareva Injunctions, Trustees Duties, Charitable Trusts and Cy Pres, Undue Influence, Prop Estoppel, Strong v Bird, The Presumption of Advancement, The Three Certainties, Doctrine of Satisfaction and Secret Trusts?

Any advice appreciated!

Donatia Morris causa is a pretty regular feature

iamanengine

It almost takes me as long to cover Injunctions and SP as it does the rest of the course!! (minus charitable)

mydogwentroof

iamanengine wrote: »

It almost takes me as long to cover Injunctions and SP as it does the rest of the course!! (minus charitable)

She's thick

user115

Does power of trustees come up much? I don't really have any cases on it

Focusing on removal and duties

Reya10

Was satisfaction on the paper in March 19?

Haven't covered it it at all but wondering if I should now as it seems to be due up for the note from what people are saying?

If anyone could give me the list of topics that came up March 19 I'd be so grateful

nmurphy1441

user115 wrote: »

Does power of trustees come up much? I don't really have any cases on it

Focusing on removal and duties

Trusteeships comes up often enough so I’d cover it! As far as I can remember, there’s not much case law but you need to know the legislation that governs it!

EmmaO94

Equity

Re DMCs - does King v Dubrey effectively overturn Vallee v Birchwood? Is Vallee v Birchwood useless now?! Thanks

Lawgrad101

Reya10 wrote: »

Was satisfaction on the paper in March 19?

Haven't covered it it at all but wondering if I should now as it seems to be due up for the note from what people are saying?

If anyone could give me the list of topics that came up March 19 I'd be so grateful

From my notes Satisfaction was up then.

March 2019:

Problem Qs- Trustees Duties, Quia Timet Injs, DMC, Specific Performance with Rectification, Resulting Trusts (Joint Accounts)

Essays- Undue Influence, Constructive Trusts, Presumption of Advancement (part , Purpose Trusts (part A), Charitable Trusts (part C) and Satisfaction (part D)

iamanengine

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Equity

Re DMCs - does King v Dubrey effectively overturn Vallee v Birchwood? Is Vallee v Birchwood useless now?! Thanks

I didn't have King v Dubrey so I looked it up, looks like it was overturned by the Court of Appeal in King v Chiltern Dog Rescue

Reya10

iamanengine wrote: »

I didn't have King v Dubrey so I looked it up, looks like it was overturned by the Court of Appeal in King v Chiltern Dog Rescue

King v Dubrey originally followed Vallee. Then Court of Appeal in King overturned it and said Vallee was wrongly decided. (King v Chiltern Dog rescue is the appeal of King v Dubrey)

So now it's clear courts must exercise 'considerable caution' in granting DMCs. Vallee was very broad as it upheld DMC that was made 4-5 months before death, and in King v Dubrey it was 4-6 months and the testator had not even been in bad health/dying of anythihg, she was just old.

Law has now backtracked- It now seems to be very unlikely that courts will uphold DMCs unless contemplated death is imminent (like in other cases before Vallee where DMCs were upheld it had only been days between gift and death) + other requirements as set out in Re Beaumont/Re Wasserberg

iamanengine

Reya10 wrote: »

King v Dubrey originally followed Vallee. Then Court of Appeal in King overturned it and said Vallee was wrongly decided. (King v Chiltern Dog rescue is the appeal of King v Dubrey)

So now it's clear courts must exercise 'considerable caution' in granting DMCs. Vallee was very broad as it upheld DMC that was made 4-5 months before death, and in King v Dubrey it was 4-6 months and the testator had not even been in bad health/dying of anythihg, she was just old.

Law has now backtracked- It now seems to be very unlikely that courts will uphold DMCs unless contemplated death is imminent (like in other cases before Vallee where DMCs were upheld it had only been days between gift and death) + other requirements as set out in Re Beaumont/Re Wasserberg

Nice one thank you, saves me having to research it