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

PerryMason2020

CMUL wrote: »

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

Sometimes she does, though. I'd nearly cover it as it's so short a topic.

Keto1456

Keto1456 wrote: »

Any very kind soul out there have recent Examiner's reports for Contract, looking for October 18, March 19 and October 19? More than happy to share anything in return!

Anyone?

PerryMason2020

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Donatia Morris causa is a pretty regular feature

I'd second this - it's nice and short and easy to learn.

JimmyJazzz

Re. Property

Apologies if this is a repeat question but can anyone shed any light on potential Adverse Possession reforms? I've read the LRC report and it seems a little thin... Is there something obvious I'm missing beyond the 21st Century parliamentary conveyance suggestion?

EmmaO94

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

Amazing, thank you for clarifying!

Jeremiah25

Possible topics that could come up as a note question excluding Strong/Hastings/Satisfaction?

EAA123

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Possible topics that could come uo as a note question exclusing Strong/Hastings/Satisfaction?

i was thinking because strong v bird and hastings bass comes up a lot i think we could get a surprise in the note questions i.e. surplus of funds, non-charitable purpose trusts or any 4 equitable maxims

although i could be wrong

User8011

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Contract

Did discharge of contracts come up on the last sitting?

My exam grid says it hasn’t come up the past two years despite it being an almost guaranteed question previously.. surely due an appearance?

Jeremiah25

User8011 wrote: »

My exam grid says it hasn’t come up the past two years despite it being an almost guaranteed question previously.. surely due an appearance?

Yeah I'm covering it.

iamanengine

Have a feeling this equity exam will be grand...and that's what worries me

Jeremiah25

iamanengine wrote: »

Have a feeling this equity exam will be grand...and that's what worries me

Hahah hopefully! Pass rate seems quite low in comparison to other subjects the last few years going by the reports. Could do with 5 solid questions!

20082014

TORT

Question on nervous shock.

In the UK, with the aftermath doctrine you have to show a close personal relationship, physical proximity and temporal proximity (McLoughlin v O'Brian). the case of Alcock then narrowed the close personal relationship to marital and parental relationships only - is this correct?!

is the above the exact same in Ireland except the close relationship now extends to siblings (Cuddys). So in Ireland you can have a nervous shock claim if primary victim is a parent, child, spouse or sibling?

No matter how many times I try to learn this I always get confused with it! I am just worried if a question comes up asking if Mary can sue for nervous shock after coming onto the scene of an accident her best friend was in - would this claim not succeed in either jurisdiction due to the relationship?

and is it correct in saying that if you witnesses the incident itself, you don't have to prove the close personal relationship in either the UK or Ireland?

Sorry for the long question, my brain is just so hazy with it all!

EAL2019

Are people doing Undue Influence/Unconscionable? Its come up the past two papers so wondering if it might be ok to leave out.

Also what about proprietary estoppel? I get the impression that proprietary tends to come up more in equity and contract is more promissory, but could be wrong!

EAL2019

User8011 wrote: »

My exam grid says it hasn’t come up the past two years despite it being an almost guaranteed question previously.. surely due an appearance?

Just FYI that Discharge did come up last paper, it was an essay question (Q6). Still a very common one though so definitely worth doing Id say

iamanengine

Equity

Am I safe leaving out:

Purpose Trusts (and Charitable)
Resulting Trusts (except Advancement)
Quia Timet

and covering everything else

Jeremiah25

iamanengine wrote: »

Equity

Am I safe leaving out:

Purpose Trusts (and Charitable)
Resulting Trusts (except Advancement)
Quia Timet

and covering everything else

Looks good. Seems she is big on charitable trusts but if you have everything else covered you should be all good!

nmurphy1441

20082014 wrote: »

TORT

Question on nervous shock.

In the UK, with the aftermath doctrine you have to show a close personal relationship, physical proximity and temporal proximity (McLoughlin v O'Brian). the case of Alcock then narrowed the close personal relationship to marital and parental relationships only - is this correct?!

is the above the exact same in Ireland except the close relationship now extends to siblings (Cuddys). So in Ireland you can have a nervous shock claim if primary victim is a parent, child, spouse or sibling?

No matter how many times I try to learn this I always get confused with it! I am just worried if a question comes up asking if Mary can sue for nervous shock after coming onto the scene of an accident her best friend was in - would this claim not succeed in either jurisdiction due to the relationship?

and is it correct in saying that if you witnesses the incident itself, you don't have to prove the close personal relationship in either the UK or Ireland?

Sorry for the long question, my brain is just so hazy with it all!

Look up the principles in Kelly v Hennessy for this jurisdiction! Pretty straight forward! The UK is far more strict than Ireland in a claim for nervous shock!

LawStudent96

EQUITY

Can anyone tell me if the Rule in Re Stead applies to half-secret trusts in the same way as it does fully secret trusts? My manual says it depends on the words used by the testator in saying how many trustees he intended to inform.

Thanks

nmurphy1441

LawStudent96 wrote: »

EQUITY

Can anyone tell me if the Rule in Re Stead applies to half-secret trusts in the same way as it does fully secret trusts? My manual says it depends on the words used by the testator in saying how many trustees he intended to inform.

Thanks

I could be wrong but the rule applies if the trust is held as tenants in common, just from the top of my head.

Jeremiah25

LawStudent96 wrote: »

EQUITY

Can anyone tell me if the Rule in Re Stead applies to half-secret trusts in the same way as it does fully secret trusts? My manual says it depends on the words used by the testator in saying how many trustees he intended to inform.

Thanks

In relation to tenancies in common - only those notified during the lifetime of the testator are bound. Any other person is entitled to their beneficial share.

Joint tenancies; communication before execution of will then all joint tenants are bound. Communication after then only those to who had accepted it are bound.

EAA123

LawStudent96 wrote: »

EQUITY

Can anyone tell me if the Rule in Re Stead applies to half-secret trusts in the same way as it does fully secret trusts? My manual says it depends on the words used by the testator in saying how many trustees he intended to inform.

Thanks

if the legatees take the gifts as tenants in common only those aware of the testator's intentions are bound by it

where the legatees are joint tenants, if one or more accepts the trust PRIOR to the execution ALL are bound by it but

if one or more of the joint tenants accepted the trust AFTER the execution of the will only those who accept it are bound by it

20082014

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Look up the principles in Kelly v Hennessy for this jurisdiction! Pretty straight forward! The UK is far more strict than Ireland in a claim for nervous shock!

Yeah I have that case, just still unsure as to what the close personal relationship would be here in Ireland? I would have thought anyone once there was a close loving relationship but then Cuddy says it extends to siblings, making me second guess myself.

nmurphy1441

20082014 wrote: »

Yeah I have that case, just still unsure as to what the close personal relationship would be here in Ireland? I would have thought anyone once there was a close loving relationship but then Cuddy says it extends to siblings, making me second guess myself.

I believe that if you witness it directly, you’re able to put a claim in. If you come upon the accident, there has to be a close personal relationship. If a stranger comes upon an accident (outside the direct zone), this stranger can’t claim for nervous shock! Just imagine a metaphorical zone around the accident and everything outside that zone, there has to be a close personal relationship! That’s my understanding! I would say family members is as far as it could go, that’s what I’d put! If I come across an extension to it, I’ll let you know

Reya10

LawStudent96 wrote: »

EQUITY

Can anyone tell me if the Rule in Re Stead applies to half-secret trusts in the same way as it does fully secret trusts? My manual says it depends on the words used by the testator in saying how many trustees he intended to inform.

Thanks

My understanding is that the rule applies to half secret and fully secret trusts- I have a sample answer that applies it to half secret trusts and also Geddis v Semple which applies the Re Stead rule is about a fully secret trust.

Also in Prenderville and Prenderville the HC said rules applicable to secret and half secret trusts in this jurisdiction are the same

user115

Night before notes mentions you should know purpose trust not just charitable and cy pres have have no time left to do notes on it, have yet to revise PE,DMC, secret trusts, satisfaction and strong and bird.....:(

Can anyone give me a quick run down of purpose trusts please?

mydogwentroof

user115 wrote: »

Night before notes mentions you should know purpose trust not just charitable and cy pres have have no time left to do notes on it, have yet to revise PE,DMC, secret trusts, satisfaction and strong and bird.....:(

Can anyone give me a quick run down of purpose trusts please?

Graves & monuments
Maintenance of Animals
Trust for unincorporated Association
All valid

Trust for saying mass
No longer valid

Rationale:

Offends rule against perpetuities, certainty of objects and lacks necessary definition

nmurphy1441

user115 wrote: »

Night before notes mentions you should know purpose trust not just charitable and cy pres have have no time left to do notes on it, have yet to revise PE,DMC, secret trusts, satisfaction and strong and bird.....:(

Can anyone give me a quick run down of purpose trusts please?

There’s not really that much else that has come up in purpose trusts except for charitable trusts and cy-pres! Only other thing I can see that has come up is gifts to unincorporated association that promote non charitable purpose!

iamanengine

Is there anything to be said for another mass?

mydogwentroof

If you can't remember a case name are you better off not using one or using one you aren't sure is correct?

iamanengine

mydogwentroof wrote: »

If you can't remember a case name are you better off not using one or using one you aren't sure is correct?

I use one of the parties if I can just remember one, if I can't remember either party but I remember the facts etc I will say something like...The court stated X (point of law) in a case where Y (facts of the case)

Jeremiah25

What do we reckon for company? Any predictions?

lawyersuffolk

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

What do we reckon for company? Any predictions?

Also wondering the same!!

coalition

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

What do we reckon for company? Any predictions?

For some reason I looked at the 2010 company paper and it was impossible! Hardly any of the usual topics and only ca. 30% of people passed !

lawless11

coalition wrote: »

For some reason I looked at the 2010 company paper and it was impossible! Hardly any of the usual topics and only ca. 30% of people passed !

The Companies Act 2014 wasn't even there... Really wouldn't go that far back guys :pac:. 10 years ago.

LawBoy2018

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

That's the UK position though, are you going to say that it would be persuasive for Irish courts? Or am I missing something?

coalition

lawless11 wrote: »

The Companies Act 2014 wasn't even there... Really wouldn't go that far back guys :pac:. 10 years ago.

I wish I hadn’t lol

For company I’m covering:

Advantages and disadvantages of incorporation
LTD v DAC
SLP
Corporate Authority
Directors Duties
Restriction orders (but not disqualification 🀦*♂️)
Leg. Control of transactions between companies and directors - s. 537, s. 538
Transfer of shares
Shareholder protection - s. 212
Borrowing - floating charges, fixed charges over book debts, ROT clauses (registration of charges is confusing me)
Directors personally liable - s. 610, s. 609
Receivership
Realisation of Corporate Assets - s. 604, s. 608, s. 602

Might still cover:
Liquidation

Leaving out:
Ultra vires
S. 158 question
Meetings
Capital maintenance
Shares
Examinership

What do people think?

PerryMason2020

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

That's the UK position though, are you going to say that it would be persuasive for Irish courts? Or am I missing something?

They're worth knowing - she mentions them in one of the examiner reports. Irish courts would look to other jurisdictions for guidance if there is no case law in this jurisdiction on a particular issue before the courts.

Reya10

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

That's the UK position though, are you going to say that it would be persuasive for Irish courts? Or am I missing something?

Yeah basically, as there's not much Irish case law on DMC I would use these

greenery2

CONTRACT - corporate borrowing - Struggling to understand the Unitherm decision... I understand Carroll but unitherm has very much confused me re the mixed funds of original price & mark up? Which in turn has confused me re aggregation clauses and all sums due clauses.... any help at all would be amazing please

mcgreee

Anyone have a quick run down of trusts for recreational activities in Charitable trusts?

coalition

greenery2 wrote: »

Struggling to understand the Unitherm decision... I understand Carroll but unitherm has very much confused me re the mixed funds of original price & mark up? Which in turn has confused me re aggregation clauses and all sums due clauses.... any help at all would be amazing please

Not for contract but in a company law context I have:

For Unitherm I just have that the standard Proceeds of Sale clause will not establish a fiduciary relationship between the seller and the purchaser so there is no equitable right to trace the proceeds. The standard POS clause states that the purchaser can resell the goods in the course of its own business and doesn’t say there is a relationship of principal-agent. The clause would have to state that a fiduciary relationship exists and greats a charge over the proceeds and that charge must be registered in order to be enforceable.

The COA overruled the HC (HC had found relationship of agent principal due to the contractual provision and how the parties had conducted their business)

Not sure if this helps

rightytighty

Are people covering disqualification as well as restriction?

Law1997

Panicking a bit about property now. I covered

About property/ above and below/treasure trove
Registration - doctrine of notice etc
Succession
Co ownership
Adverse p
Licenses
Easements
Landlord & Tenant Law
Family property

Is this definitely enough? I didn’t cover any of those early chapters because saw they never really come up but am concerned now.
Any advice much appreciated!

CiaranS93

Law1997 wrote: »

Panicking a bit about property now. I covered

About property/ above and below/treasure trove
Registration - doctrine of notice etc
Succession
Co ownership
Adverse p
Licenses
Easements
Landlord & Tenant Law
Family property

Is this definitely enough? I didn’t cover any of those early chapters because saw they never really come up but am concerned now.
Any advice much appreciated!

I covered 5 topics for property in the last sitting:

AP
Co ownership
Succession
Easements
Finding

Finding didn't even come up but could answer five as two Q's on succession.

You should be covered with what you have. Examiner Is pretty handy marker too I wouldn't worry too much about property.

Edit: There's bigger less predictable subjects you should worry about haha

iamanengine

Flicked over my equity notes there and knew absolutely nothing!!

Going to take that as a sign that my brain is fried and needs sleep and hope that it comes back to me in a few hours...

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

Flicked over my equity notes there and knew absolutely nothing!!

Going to take that as a sign that my brain is fried and needs sleep and hope that it comes back to me in a few hours...

You aren't the only one. Here's to hoping it all comes flooding in once we open that exam paper

coalition

rightytighty wrote: »

Are people covering disqualification as well as restriction?

I’m not! Do you know the last time in came up and in what context?

iamanengine

CiaranS93 wrote: »

You aren't the only one. Here's to hoping it all comes flooding in once we open that exam paper

Yep, I figure a half decent nights sleep won’t hurt

lawyersuffolk

coalition wrote: »

I’m not! Do you know the last time in came up and in what context?

Think it came up on last paper so wasn’t going to cover it at all

coalition

lawyersuffolk wrote: »

Think it came up on last paper so wasn’t going to cover it at all

On the last company paper question 3 was just on restrictions under s. 819