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

Fe1student1234

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ok so for tort I have:

Negligence
Hedley Byrne
Pure Economic Loss
Prof neg
Occupiers liability
Rylands v fletcher
Nuisance
Trespass
Defamation
Defences
Remedies

What else should I cover? Employers or product liability? Both? Passing off?

I’m going on city colleges manual if anyone’s chapters coincide... I’ve never covered so many topics before and am worried about not remembering them all! Also worried about not being able to identify the relevant topics in a question, or being left short because there’s multiple topics in a question!

I’ve done all that ( except for defamation ) plus passing off, vicarious Liability employers Liability, products Liability and parties to tort actions

ahhhhhFE1s

spygirl wrote: »

Does anyone have a quick synopsis, case note on Green v Hardiman? In the alternative can anyone confirm I'm right below.

Superior Courts confirmed that he should be compensated, notwithstanding the argument that he was SB? Clock didn't start to run against him until he knew there was a cause of action? IE when he got back the report in 2012 not when the hernia etc kicked off. So it's very fact specific

s.3(1) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 introduced a discoverability element for personal injury claims, now time starts to run the moment the cause of action accrues or the date of knowledge if later.

Green v Hardiman allowed that date of knowledge was when he received the expert report and signified an important development in relation to date of knowledge considerations and thus limitation of actions

Nothing much different that what you have but hopefully helps you understand!

Aoibhin511

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok so for tort I have:

Negligence
Hedley Byrne
Pure Economic Loss
Prof neg
Occupiers liability
Rylands v fletcher
Nuisance
Trespass
Defamation
Defences
Remedies

What else should I cover? Employers or product liability? Both? Passing off?

I’m going on city colleges manual if anyone’s chapters coincide... I’ve never covered so many topics before and am worried about not remembering them all! Also worried about not being able to identify the relevant topics in a question, or being left short because there’s multiple topics in a question!

Think Employers is more likely than products, also hoping for passing off as its usually a lovely q

spygirl

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok so for tort I have:

Negligence
Hedley Byrne
Pure Economic Loss
Prof neg
Occupiers liability
Rylands v fletcher
Nuisance
Trespass
Defamation
Defences
Remedies

What else should I cover? Employers or product liability? Both? Passing off?

I’m going on city colleges manual if anyone’s chapters coincide... I’ve never covered so many topics before and am worried about not remembering them all! Also worried about not being able to identify the relevant topics in a question, or being left short because there’s multiple topics in a question!

Go through your case lists and see if you have any heavy lifters in there? ie cases that can cover a few topics for you. I'm taking in Morrisey for Professional Neg, Vicarious liability, awards for wrongful death, capping of awards. Can reduce it down for you quite a bit.

If you can swing the three you mentioned, might be no harm. H eis known for multiple topics in a question. Would look at liability for others as well, eg kids, animals etc. Short and sweet generally. Basic outline of them, main cases etc, just to be covered.

dobby896

Lallers96 wrote: »

If you read my comment I did not say people from the 3 counties are baseless in their worry.

I said people were baseless in their fear mongering that the exams will be cancelled.

It seems you are reading what you would like to read and argue about rather than what is in front of you.

I'm not reading what I would like to read at all nor am I arguing with you, I think it is just unfair to accuse people of fear mongering when this is, in reality, a huge fear for some people.

I also never said you referred to people from those 3 counties specifically, we have no idea where anyone who is posting is from, they could very well be from those 3 counties and they would, as I said, be justified in their concern.

Lallers96

dobby896 wrote: »

I'm not reading what I would like to read at all nor am I arguing with you, I think it is just unfair to accuse people of fear mongering when this is, in reality, a huge fear for some people.

I also never said you referred to people from those 3 counties specifically, we have no idea where anyone who is posting is from, they could very well be from those 3 counties and they would, as I said, be justified in their concern.

Of course it is a valid fear but what purpose does it serve to spread that fear here?

Do the same people that always seem to be saying "it'll be cancelled I'm telling ya" know something we don't? No. So it adds nothing to this thread or conversation. Neither does this discussion to be honest so I'll leave it at that because really if I wanted to talk about the virus I'd go to a virus thread. I think we should leave this thread for what it is intended for and let people get advice or answers for the exam, and in the event there is an official announcement then fair enough let it be discussed here.

The spreading of fears, while valid personal fears reminds me of auld lads sharing WhatsApp messages back in February saying there'd be a full scale lockdown from me buddy's wifes cousin who works for the government.

iamanengine

spygirl wrote: »

Does anyone have a quick synopsis, case note on Green v Hardiman? In the alternative can anyone confirm I'm right below.

Superior Courts confirmed that he should be compensated, notwithstanding the argument that he was SB? Clock didn't start to run against him until he knew there was a cause of action? IE when he got back the report in 2012 not when the hernia etc kicked off. So it's very fact specific

Green v Hardiman - P had an operation in December 2007, his bowel was accidentally perforated which went undiscovered. He became ill, had further surgeries and developed a hernia. He got a new surgeon who did not have the earlier hospital notes. P consulted a solicitor in 2011 and a report was received from an expert in 2012. The report gave evidence that the failure re the bowel perforation was the cause of subsequent problems. Proceedings issued in August 2012. P claimed the date of knowledge was 3 May 2012, the date of the expert report. The earlier advice, which P had relied on, was incorrect so time did not run. C held time ran in May.

dobby896

Lallers96 wrote: »

Do the same people that always seem to be saying "it'll be cancelled I'm telling ya" know something we don't? No. So it adds nothing to this thread or conversation. I think we should leave this thread for what it is intended for and let people get advice or answers for the exam, and in the event there is an official announcement then fair enough let it be discussed here.

The spreading of fears, while valid personal fears reminds me of auld lads sharing WhatsApp messages back in February saying there'd be a full scale lockdown from me buddy's wifes cousin who works for the government.

That's fair, this thread should definitely left to assist people taking the exam.

All I'll say is that the situation is very fluid and all we can do it sit, wait and hear.

Good luck in your exams!

eastwestlad

Tort

Was mentioned previously but can't find out clarified it, what's the cap on damages figure?

ahhhhhFE1s

eastwestlad wrote: »

Tort

Was mentioned previously but can't find out clarified it, what's the cap on damages figure?

general damages €500,000 as per Morrissey v HSE as far as I know

eastwestlad

Unrelated matter

Anyone willing to sell their Criminal manual or swap for another subject ?

DM if interested.

Thanks.

Mod
Pls do not use this forum for swapping nor selling manuals etc

LawLover2020

Hi all,

I have a quick question in relation to disclaimers in Occupiers’ Liability.

Am I correct in saying the law can be summarised as follows:

S. 5 of the Occupier Liability Act 1995 provides that an occupier may restrict or modify his statutory duties towards entrants on his premises. Any such restriction must be reasonable in the circumstances. Where this restriction occurs through notice, the occupier is under an obligation to take reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention entrant. This can normally be done by placing the notice prominently on the entry point to the premises. S.5 also provides that an occupier cannot exclude or restrict liability towards the entrant in such a manner as would allow him to intentionally injure the entrant or his property. The nature of the warning must be such as to allow the entrant to avoid the danger on the premises.

I guess I’m wondering if the rules on disclaimers apply to entrants as a whole? Or, are there different rules concerning disclaimers for visitors/recreational users/trespassers?

Thanks in advance.

HappyKitten62

LawLover2020 wrote: »

Hi all,

I have a quick question in relation to disclaimers in Occupiers’ Liability.

Am I correct in saying the law can be summarised as follows:

S. 5 of the Occupier Liability Act 1995 provides that an occupier may restrict or modify his statutory duties towards entrants on his premises. Any such restriction must be reasonable in the circumstances. Where this restriction occurs through notice, the occupier is under an obligation to take reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention entrant. This can normally be done by placing the notice prominently on the entry point to the premises. S.5 also provides that an occupier cannot exclude or restrict liability towards the entrant in such a manner as would allow him to intentionally injure the entrant or his property. The nature of the warning must be such as to allow the entrant to avoid the danger on the premises.

I guess I’m wondering if the rules on disclaimers apply to entrants as a whole? Or, are there different rules concerning disclaimers for visitors/recreational users/trespassers?

Thanks in advance.

Basically, you can modify or restrict your duty owed under section 5 but can never restrict the duty owed to a visitor below that owed to a recreational user and trespasser - not to intentionally injure or act with reckless disregard to their safety. I think this applies to all entrants as you can’t absolve yourself of liability completely! Hope this helps.

iamanengine

Am I right in saying that the EU is a signatory to the ECHR although it doesn't technically form part of EU law?

Or is it the case that all member states of the EU are signatories?

Aoibhin511

iamanengine wrote: »

Am I right in saying that the EU is a signatory to the ECHR although it doesn't technically form part of EU law?

Or is it the case that all member states of the EU are signatories?

yeah Art 6 (2) TEU says so

iamanengine

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

yeah Art 6 (2) TEU says so

I know 6(2) says the EU shall accede but it hasn't actually acceded yet due to exceptions raised by the ECJ, so it's in some kind of weird middle ground...if my understanding is correct!

EmmaO94

Anyone know if we're due any Night Before materials for the August sitting? I always find the videos especially helpful but fear we might have to do without this time?!

LJones18

Does anyone have any advise on distinguishing topics for Qs, I'm finding it had to know how I will know if a Question is on Nuisance, or if is Rylands and Fletcher? Does Rylands and Fletcher come up very often?

Hiya1234

LJones18 wrote: »

Does anyone have any advise on distinguishing topics for Qs, I'm finding it had to know how I will know if a Question is on Nuisance, or if is Rylands and Fletcher? Does Rylands and Fletcher come up very often?

If anything escapes from property then you would apply Rylands.

Majority of times Nuisance comes up! It has been a couple of sittings since Rylands came up - I think!!!

Fedone

Heads up for anyone who hasn’t done exams in the RDS before, the traffic heading for ballsbridge at 9am on a weekday has always been awful (not sure if Covid has helped this but I’m assuming it’s hasn’t to be on the safe side). If you’re driving I would definitely advise leaving earlier and sitting in the car park to look over notes, have a coffee, etc. Has saved me so much stress being there super early instead of sitting in traffic worrying about making it there in time

spygirl

Fedone wrote: »

Heads up for anyone who hasn’t done exams in the RDS before, the traffic heading for ballsbridge at 9am on a weekday has always been awful (not sure if Covid has helped this but I’m assuming it’s hasn’t to be on the safe side). If you’re driving I would definitely advise leaving earlier and sitting in the car park to look over notes, have a coffee, etc. Has saved me so much stress being there super early instead of sitting in traffic worrying about making it there in time

My general plan is as above, Is there a good coffee shop out there anyone know? They could make a nice few quid of coffee from us if the facility exists. Otherwise it will have to a flask in the car. not doing a two day donkey trek for my fix that morning.

Rainbow25

Just got a reply from the Law society confirming that the exams are going ahead Tuesday and Thursday!

lawgrad15

spygirl wrote: »

My general plan is as above, Is there a good coffee shop out there anyone know? They could make a nice few quid of coffee from us if the facility exists. Otherwise it will have to a flask in the car. not doing a two day donkey trek for my fix that morning.

If you're parking near Simmonscourt, there's a coffee dock in the Clayton Hotel which is a short walk away.

Otherwise, there's an Insomnia in Ballsbridge and there's a Butlers and Starbucks on Shelbourne Road. There are possibly other coffee shops too but those are all I can think of. Not sure what way their opening hours are with covid.

Iso_123

LJones18 wrote: »

Does anyone have any advise on distinguishing topics for Qs, I'm finding it had to know how I will know if a Question is on Nuisance, or if is Rylands and Fletcher? Does Rylands and Fletcher come up very often?

If the Q specifically emphasizes something that looks like an unusual/strange use of the land escaping onto neighboring properties it is usually safe to go with Rylands! I always think of Rylands when I see anything like chemicals, man made reservoirs etc but I have seen some questions where both nuisance and Rylands are present eg Q6 October 2017

Iso_123

Fedone wrote: »

Heads up for anyone who hasn’t done exams in the RDS before, the traffic heading for ballsbridge at 9am on a weekday has always been awful (not sure if Covid has helped this but I’m assuming it’s hasn’t to be on the safe side). If you’re driving I would definitely advise leaving earlier and sitting in the car park to look over notes, have a coffee, etc. Has saved me so much stress being there super early instead of sitting in traffic worrying about making it there in time

Does anyone know what time the car park opens at?

DFMCD190384

Iso_123 wrote: »

Does anyone know what time the car park opens at?

It doesn't say on the letter (I don't think so anyway). It just says the carpark is €7 and to pay by card.

Also, make sure to check your email. I got one yesterday saying the time of my exam is 10am and not 9.30am. I'm in Hall 8C.

Is anyone else feeling a little all over the place? Honestly, if a paper was put in front of me right now for EU I wouldn't be able to answer it. I don't know how I'm going to know it all by Thursday.

Fedone

Iso_123 wrote: »

Does anyone know what time the car park opens at?

For UCD exams the stewards would be there from 7am onwards, not sure if it’s the same for these but I would imagine 7/7:30am

Lallers96

Won't be checking this thread here until maybe after the exams so I just wanted to say thanks to all the people who gave advice or tips on the exams to me, and others. It's rare to find a group of students for the FE1s online.

Best of luck next week to everyone

Healyjhow

Any chance anyone would post what topics they’ve covered for EU... I feel like I’ve covered very few and I’m a bit triggered now hahaha

Aoibhin511

Healyjhow wrote: »

Any chance anyone would post what topics they’ve covered for EU... I feel like I’ve covered very few and I’m a bit triggered now hahaha

Coving 8 topics which I think should have me covered for 5/6 Q's in the exam
Institutions
Direct Effect and MS liability
Judicial review
Citizenship and workers
Services
Goods
Fundamental Rights
Equal pay/treatment and nondiscrimination

lawd20

Hi would anyone have a short summary of UCC v ESB 2020 IESC in the context of Nuisance? I've skimmed the judgement and it seems to mostly relate to D's duty of care, any info would be appreciated!!!

iamanengine

DFMCD190384 wrote: »

It doesn't say on the letter (I don't think so anyway). It just says the carpark is €7 and to pay by card.

Also, make sure to check your email. I got one yesterday saying the time of my exam is 10am and not 9.30am. I'm in Hall 8C.

Is anyone else feeling a little all over the place? Honestly, if a paper was put in front of me right now for EU I wouldn't be able to answer it. I don't know how I'm going to know it all by Thursday.

My motto for these exams has always been that you know more than you think you do. I'm always genuinely surprised once I'm sitting down in the exam and start writing that I actually do know some stuff!

Also don't under estimate the amount of information you can take in even just cramming the day before

Hamerzan Sickles

iamanengine wrote: »

My motto for these exams has always been that you know more than you think you do. I'm always genuinely surprised once I'm sitting down in the exam and start writing that I actually do know some stuff!

Also don't under estimate the amount of information you can take in even just cramming the day before

These are the two most important philosophies for the exam anyone can have I think. 95% of what you put down on the exam is what you crammed the day before; and it's amazing what you end up writing without even realising it. You absorb this information without thinking about it a lot of the time, and you don't know what you actually know until you have to sit down and articulate it.

(Also, @iamanegine, I sent you a PM there.)

Healyjhow

Don’t suppose anyone has sample answers for tort papers 2019? I have up til 2018 if anyone needs them

Aoibhin511

Healyjhow wrote: »

Don’t suppose anyone has sample answers for tort papers 2019? I have up til 2018 if anyone needs them

I have tort sample answers up to 2019 from griffith, dunno how much I trust them sometimes she seems to answer questions exactly how the examiner report said not to, but if you want to DM me your email I can pass them on

IgoPAP

The pass rate for EU and Torts is hovering at, what, 70-80%? Most people manage to pass it in the end.

spygirl

08.30 according to law society, I asked last week. Bit tight
will be aiming to get there a bit before that and take a chance if am honest. Not too familiar with the RDS buildings so don't fancy getting lost on the day

vid36

IgoPAP wrote: »

The pass rate for EU and Torts is hovering at, what, 70-80%? Most people manage to pass it in the end.

Tort pass rate averages about 66%. Sometimes it goes up to 70, other times down to 61-62
EU pass rate in 75-80% range consistently

Lawgrad101

Does anyone know if you get a letter from the law society once you have passed all 8 exams?

spygirl

I know we are keeping it light here, those are some pretty sobering numbers today.
Just how unbreakable is that disclaimer do you reckon??? Asking for a friend.

spygirl

Lawgrad101 wrote: »

Does anyone know if you get a letter from the law society once you have passed all 8 exams?

God I hope so, I have no idea where my first results letter is :eek:

HappyKitten62

spygirl wrote: »

I know we are keeping it light here, those are some pretty sobering numbers today.
Just how unbreakable is that disclaimer do you reckon??? Asking for a friend.

Yes high numbers but the chief medical officer has stated they are not planning to lockdown any other counties at this moment in time.

100 cases were in Kildare alone.

The exams will go ahead.

Fe1student1234

spygirl wrote: »

I know we are keeping it light here, those are some pretty sobering numbers today.
Just how unbreakable is that disclaimer do you reckon??? Asking for a friend.

I’m keeping an open mind! But I won’t be surprised whatever they decide

HappyKitten62

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

Yes high numbers but the chief medical officer has stated they are not planning to lockdown any other counties at this moment in time.

100 cases were in Kildare alone.

The exams will go ahead.

Said we can’t be complacent about the rest of the country too as 50 shows an increase of cases everywhere!

Agree that exams will go ahead, but really pity students from those 3 counties. Exams not on the gov list of essential travel and Gardaí checkpoints out too.

spygirl

Apologies, I took this off topic. Right so vicarious Liability. Close connection test, would I be safe enough just taking in Lister, Elmonton and Reilly? is there anyone I am missing in that list?

Fe1student1234

spygirl wrote: »

Apologies, I took this off topic. Right so vicarious Liability. Close connection test, would I be safe enough just taking in Lister, Elmonton and Reilly? is there anyone I am missing in that list?

In the case of Various claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets they overturned the finding of vicarious Liability because they said the fact that he had access to the payroll and uploaded the details of other employees online was not sufficiently connected to his employment.

I’m open for correction on this

Not sure if you need to add that case but to me it looks like they’re kinda of reducing close connection

iamanengine

Fe1student1234 wrote: »

In the case of Various claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets they overturned the finding of vicarious Liability because they said the fact that he had access to the payroll and uploaded the details of other employees online was not sufficiently connected to his employment.

I’m open for correction on this

Not sure if you need to add that case but to me it looks like they’re kinda of reducing close connection

Was this an appeal of Mohamud v WM Morrisons or this a separate case?

Edit - Separate case. Good summary here - https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0213-press-summary.pdf

Lawofattracti

iamanengine wrote: »

Was this an appeal of Mohamud v WM Morrisons or this a separate case?

Edit - Separate case. Good summary here - https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0213-press-summary.pdf

Two different cases I believe

spygirl

iamanengine wrote: »

Was this an appeal of Mohamud v WM Morrisons or this a separate case?

Edit - Separate case. Good summary here - https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0213-press-summary.pdf

I think different case. Mohamud is petrol lad who assaulted fella who tried to skip out on paying for petrol. Making sure people paid was closely connected with his employment, as was dealing with customers so liability applied.

Close connection test being used recently a bit in UKSC re abuse claims, schools church etc. Expected we will be following it. Have done so already as far as I can recall. An O'Donnell judgment is on the outskirts of my brain somewhere

HappyKitten62

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Said we can’t be complacent about the rest of the country too as 50 shows an increase of cases everywhere!

Agree that exams will go ahead, but really pity students from those 3 counties. Exams not on the gov list of essential travel and Gardaí checkpoints out too.

Oh absolutely! But no more lockdown as of yet.