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

IgoPAP

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.

The increased case number is due to the family members and close connections of the specific clusters in meat-processing factories being tested, and not due to some general increase in community transmission numbers all over the country. Yesterday it was mentioned that a sharp increase is expected as all the connections were being tested this week. Nothing to panic about. Not yet at least.

spygirl

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

Oh absolutely! But no more lockdown as of yet.

I'm less worried about a lockdown then I am about sitting in a room with strangers for three hours tbh. Measures are in place, it will be like shoplifting at Tesco, grand.

Fe1student1234

IgoPAP wrote: »

The increased case number is due to the family members and close connections of the specific clusters in meat-processing factories being tested, and not due to some general increase in community transmission numbers all over the country. Yesterday it was mentioned that a sharp increase is expected as all the connections were being tested this week. Nothing to panic about. Not yet at least.

Still 50 cases outside of those three counties with 27 of them in Dublin

But yeah there will be a big number of cases over the next few days due to the testing of family members and friends of those in the cluster.
As long as they can keep it contained it Shouldn’t spread through the community

HappyKitten62

spygirl wrote: »

I'm less worried about a lockdown then I am about sitting in a room with strangers for three hours tbh. Measures are in place, it will be like shoplifting at Tesco, grand.

Don’t worry it will all be fine. And if you’re extremely concerned etc, remember it’s only an exam at the end of the day and there are much more important things in life!

Fe1student1234

Hopefully the law society or local Gardaí have provided some clarity for the people in the lockdown counties.

I’d be furious if I couldn’t sit it. There should be some contingency plan for them if they are not allowed up to sit it

iamanengine

spygirl wrote: »

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

Cool thank you.

Just finished going through the summary there. I wouldn't say they have restricted the close connection test. Main issue in Various Claimants seems to be that he was following a personal vendetta rather than acting for his employer as was the case in Mohamud.

Hopefully we get a VL question, would be lovely, and can show off that fresh 2020 case law knowledge

Edit - Just on the Mohamud case. I don't think the facts were that he tried to skip on paying petrol and that's why he was attacked. My manual says that he asked the employee a question and then got attacked pretty much. But close connection was found cos his job involved interacting with customers. Not sure though, maybe my manual left that part out?

spygirl

iamanengine wrote: »

Cool thank you.

Just finished going through the summary there. I wouldn't say they have restricted the close connection test. Main issue in Various Claimants seems to be that he was following a personal vendetta rather than acting for his employer as was the case in Mohamud.

Hopefully we get a VL question, would be lovely, and can show off that fresh 2020 case law knowledge

Oh god I would love a full vicarious liability question, passing off, defamation, bit of trespass to person and occupiers liability would be a dream come through. Maybe throw in liability for kids or animals for good measure.

I can keep dreaming. Any bets on Nervous Shock making an appearance?
I know it had been absent for a bit.

IgoPAP

It should also be noted that opening up society would lead to an inevitable increase in case numbers. That's just completely obvious. The objective was to ensure that any increase in numbers in sustainable and that our overall capacity is maintained. Beyond the complete mayhem in specific sectors such as meat-processing factories, I think we've done pretty well here all things considered.

spygirl

Actually given the amount of new cases on it, VL could be a good shout to make an appearance. He regularly complains students don't understand it so could throw it in for this year for the craic.

Fe1student1234

spygirl wrote: »

Oh god I would love a full vicarious liability question, passing off, defamation, bit of trespass to person and occupiers liability would be a dream come through. Maybe throw in liability for kids or animals for good measure.

I can keep dreaming. Any bets on Nervous Shock making an appearance?
I know it had been absent for a bit.

I’m thinking it will be either nervous shock or pure economic loss as an essay - I think pure economic loss came up more recently than nervous shock but I think both could be due a run

iamanengine

spygirl wrote: »

Oh god I would love a full vicarious liability question, passing off, defamation, bit of trespass to person and occupiers liability would be a dream come through. Maybe throw in liability for kids or animals for good measure.

I can keep dreaming. Any bets on Nervous Shock making an appearance?
I know it had been absent for a bit.

That would be a lovely paper. Yeah I fancy Nervous Shock to come up! Weird thing about Tort, depending on what topics come up it could either be easy or a nightmare.

In case you missed my edit in my last post -

Just on the Mohamud case. I don't think the facts were that he tried to skip on paying petrol and that's why he was attacked. My manual says that he just asked the employee a question about getting photos printed and then got attacked. But close connection was found cos his job involved interacting with customers. Not sure though, maybe my manual left that part out?

spygirl

Fe1student1234 wrote: »

I’m thinking it will be either nervous shock or pure economic loss as an essay - I think pure economic loss came up more recently than nervous shock but I think both could be due a run

An essay on nervous shock, hmm hope not.Only thing I really know about that is the historical developments and the incremental v uniform test debate to flesh it out.
Anything new in NS to be aware of?

Fe1student1234

iamanengine wrote: »

Cool thank you.

Just finished going through the summary there. I wouldn't say they have restricted the close connection test. Main issue in Various Claimants seems to be that he was following a personal vendetta rather than acting for his employer as was the case in Mohamud.

Hopefully we get a VL question, would be lovely, and can show off that fresh 2020 case law knowledge

Edit - Just on the Mohamud case. I don't think the facts were that he tried to skip on paying petrol and that's why he was attacked. My manual says that he asked the employee a question and then got attacked pretty much. But close connection was found cos his job involved interacting with customers. Not sure though, maybe my manual left that part out?

“the Supreme Court held that the test of vicarious liability is limited to circumstances where the actions of the employee were carried out in pursuing the business of the employer, and were not in an effort to deliberately harm the employer.”

Just an easy but to learn off for that case

I have the same on Mohamud case that the customer asked him something and then the employee assaulted him

Fe1student1234

spygirl wrote: »

An essay on nervous shock, hmm hope not.Only thing I really know about that is the historical developments and the incremental v uniform test debate to flesh it out.
Anything new in NS to be aware of?

I don’t have anything new just the English approach v Irish approach

IgoPAP

Nervous shock I have English v Irish approach; NS in the employment context. Didn't think there was anything else to NS!

spygirl

iamanengine wrote: »

That would be a lovely paper. Yeah I fancy Nervous Shock to come up! Weird thing about Tort, depending on what topics come up it could either be easy or a nightmare.

In case you missed my edit in my last post -

Just on the Mohamud case. I don't think the facts were that he tried to skip on paying petrol and that's why he was attacked. My manual says that he just asked the employee a question about getting photos printed and then got attacked. But close connection was found cos his job involved interacting with customers. Not sure though, maybe my manual left that part out?

I'm going to recheck that bit, but my notes said after initial inquiry he followed customer out the forecourt and told him never to come back. Then the altercation occurred. not even sure where I got that bit from so need to look. I assumed was just from reading the case. Other than that my facts match yours. No break in the sequence of events so liability was held as just and reasonable in the circumstances.

LJones18

With regards to Citizenship (EU Law)

If an individual from another EU MS has been residing in another MS, for more than 5 years, not working, will they gain rights of Residency?

If they have not been seeking employment?

Do the facts change depending on whether they are a Job Seeker?

Sorry might be a simple question, just not wrapping my head around the citizenship chapter very well!

lawd20

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?

Say you were to answer a close connection test essay question (q6 Oct 2018), you'd need more than those.

Cases I'd suggest referencing: ,
Canada:
Blazey v Curry
Doe v Bennett
TW v SEO

UK:
Lister
Mohamad v Morrisons Supermarkets
Magda v Birmingham Roman Catholic

claimant being 12, and positionof priest in charge of youth activities also gave him special responsibilities and allowed him to develop the relationship with the claimant

Various Claimants v The Catholic Child Welfare Society
Various Claimants v Morrisons

EE deliberately leaked 100,000 employees data online. Failed close connection test, distinction between actions of employees who are engaged, in furthering their employers’ business VS furthering self interests/on a frolic.

Ireland:
O'Keefe v Hickey and Department of Education

Fennelly's close connection test (must be a close connection between the work EE is employed to do (i.e. the scope of employment) -and- the tortious act that they have committed.

Hickey v McGowan (SC approving Fennelly in O'Keefe)
Elmontem v Nethercross Limited & Ors: 2014: IEHC “close connection test” adopted. a case in which an employee, hit another employee,– the court held that even on the most liberal interpretation of the close connection test, the employer was not vicariously liable.

Hope this helps!!

Fe1student1234

lawd20 wrote: »

Say you were to answer a close connection test essay question (q6 Oct 2018), you'd need more than those.

Cases I'd suggest referencing: ,
Canada:
Blazey v Curry
Doe v Bennett
TW v SEO

UK:
Lister
Mohamad v Morrisons Supermarkets
Magda v Birmingham Roman Catholic

claimant being 12, and positionof priest in charge of youth activities also gave him special responsibilities and allowed him to develop the relationship with the claimant

Various Claimants v The Catholic Child Welfare Society
Various Claimants v Morrisons

EE deliberately leaked 100,000 employees data online. Failed close connection test, distinction between actions of employees who are engaged, in furthering their employers’ business VS furthering self interests/on a frolic.

Ireland:
O'Keefe v Hickey and Department of Education

Fennelly's close connection test (must be a close connection between the work EE is employed to do (i.e. the scope of employment) -and- the tortious act that they have committed.

Hickey v McGowan (SC approving Fennelly in O'Keefe)
Elmontem v Nethercross Limited & Ors: 2014: IEHC “close connection test” adopted. a case in which an employee, hit another employee,– the court held that even on the most liberal interpretation of the close connection test, the employer was not vicariously liable.

Hope this helps!!

What’s worrying me is that my sample answer made no reference to the close connection test at all for that question.

Don’t think I’ll be relying on any sample answers anymore

lawd20

sent you a DM there.

godfather2

Fe1student1234 wrote: »

What’s worrying me is that my sample answer made no reference to the close connection test at all for that question.

Don’t think I’ll be relying on any sample answers anymore

Close connection test really only used in difficult cases. Not an employee, or not in furtherance of their duties, scope of employment.
Courts usually just jeep VL test simple unless the facts call for a bit more. My own interpretation so I wouldn't panic about it to be honest. Be aware of it, skim the basics

sunnylegal

Hi, could we keep this thread purely for legal questions and not COVID related matters - we’ll find out if they are cancelled - all the talk in the world isn’t going to change the current public health situation.

A pandemic for many, is full of grief.
Furthermore, exams are also very stressful. The constant hypothetical whirlwind here isn’t doing anybody any favours!

No disregard at all, sure it’s on all our minds atm.
Just maybe a suggestion for the well being of us all.

What’s the likelihood on defamation making an appearance? And in what way do people think? I’m struggling with it as it’s so big a topic

Aoibhin511

Deleted User wrote: »

What’s the likelihood on defamation making an appearance? And in what way do people think? I’m struggling with it as it’s so big a topic

I can't decide if it's definitely due a break or has become a guaranteed question

Fe1student1234

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What’s the likelihood on defamation making an appearance? And in what way do people think? I’m struggling with it as it’s so big a topic

I’ve decided to leave it out. Couldn’t bring myself to do it even if it could be a guaranteed question

godfather2

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

I can't decide if it's definitely due a break or has become a guaranteed question

I gambled on it being due a break previously and paid dearly for it. Honestly don't think there is much you can safely skip for this exam. Inch deep mile wide scenario.

Fe1student1234

godfather2 wrote: »

I gambled on it being due a break previously and paid dearly for it. Honestly don't think there is much you can safely skip for this exam. Inch deep mile wide scenario.

I think if you have everything else covered and leave out one or two topics you should be fine !!

Sunflowers8

Anyone know if, when you finally pass all the FE1s and get a letter to prove so, whether it shows the ones you failed/were absent for? Like my results letter this week showed I was absent for Tort in March, will my final letter say the same?

godfather2

godfather2 wrote: »

I gambled on it being due a break previously and paid dearly for it. Honestly don't think there is much you can safely skip for this exam. Inch deep mile wide scenario.

That’s my approach for now but I just don’t know how I’m gonna cram it all into my brain!

Sure look, if anyone’s panicking - we’re in the middle of a pandemic! Reasons for failing an exam don’t come much more valid than that!

iamanengine

Is Morrissey v HSE only relevant for medical negligence or does it apply elsewhere?

Hiya1234

iamanengine wrote: »

Is Morrissey v HSE only relevant for medical negligence or does it apply elsewhere?

Vicarious Liability as well

godfather2

iamanengine wrote: »

Is Morrissey v HSE only relevant for medical negligence or does it apply elsewhere?

Few spots. Good all rounder. Confirms cap on grneral damages, vicarious liability, direct liability, recovery for wrongful death, lost years payments etc.

vid36

Sunflowers8 wrote: »

Anyone know if, when you finally pass all the FE1s and get a letter to prove so, whether it shows the ones you failed/were absent for? Like my results letter this week showed I was absent for Tort in March, will my final letter say the same?

No, you just get letter saying you passed the FE1s.No other grades or anything.

20082014

Hi guys,

In relation to question 7 March 2016- would you consider tommy a trespasser or a recreational user? The sample answer I have isn’t that great, it doesn’t even state what category of entrant he is!

I would think trespasser as there are signs up forbidding being in the water which would mean that this wouldn’t be classified as a recreational activity if it is forbidden - any help would be greatly appreciated on this.
Thank you!

Aoibhin511

20082014 wrote: »

Hi guys,

In relation to question 7 March 2016- would you consider tommy a trespasser or a recreational user? The sample answer I have isn’t that great, it doesn’t even state what category of entrant he is!

I would think trespasser as there are signs up forbidding being in the water which would mean that this wouldn’t be classified as a recreational activity if it is forbidden - any help would be greatly appreciated on this.
Thank you!

Its hard to say which he is, I would be more inclined to say trespasser but you could argue both, and I probably would in an exam. But ultimately the DoC owed is the same so it doesn't really matter which he is except maybe for a contributory negligence argument

LawLover2020

Am I correct in saying that whilst Ms. Morrissey was awarded damages for loss of expectation of life in the HC, this aspect of the HC decision was overturned by the SC?

iamanengine

If public nuisance were to come up in the exam would you still apply the same rules as a private nuisance? Interference with use and enjoyment, unreasonableness and all that? I don't know if public nuisance ever comes up but would be good to know just in case

Aoibhin511

iamanengine wrote: »

If public nuisance were to come up in the exam would you still apply the same rules as a private nuisance? Interference with use and enjoyment, unreasonableness and all that? I don't know if public nuisance ever comes up but would be good to know just in case

It came up in Q3 March '16 with RvF, and yeah its the same principles, I'm even using the same cases, but that could be a gamble

iamanengine

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

It came up in Q3 March '16 with RvF, and yeah its the same principles, I'm even using the same cases, but that could be a gamble

Nice one thanks. I think that would be fine, the only difference seems to be that the plaintiff has to show special or particular damage so you are probably fine applying the same cases

YcL

Hi all

Tort Question 1 March 2017, just wondering would anyone know what tort you would advise on. Im just confused on how you would approach it. Any insight greatly appreciated!

Hiya1234

YcL wrote: »

Hi all

Tort Question 1 March 2017, just wondering would anyone know what tort you would advise on. Im just confused on how you would approach it. Any insight greatly appreciated!

I would start by enquiring whether the coach had a duty of care towards to Sam. Run through those principles, whether he breached that standard of care. Then by declaring he was negligent, I would then focus on vicarious liability - is the school liable for the negligence of the coach. Could also throw in employers liability - was the coach acting within scope/course of employment or on a frolic of his own by ignoring the protocol of having the team doctor examine Sam.

I think - open to correction???

Just realised the frolic bit is vicarious liability and not employers liability - fml haha

20082014

YcL wrote: »

Hi all

Tort Question 1 March 2017, just wondering would anyone know what tort you would advise on. Im just confused on how you would approach it. Any insight greatly appreciated!

I would answer on vicarious liability as the questions asks to advise the secondary school on liability. I would also probably mention the defence if contributory negligence on sams part as he decided to continue playing. There’s probably more that could be added to this but that’s all I can grasp from it, it’s a tough question I think.

YcL

Hiya1234 wrote: »

I would start by enquiring whether the coach had a duty of care towards to Sam. Run through those principles, whether he breached that standard of care. Then by declaring he was negligent, I would then focus on vicarious liability - is the school liable for the negligence of the coach. Could also throw in employers liability - was the coach acting within scope/course of employment or on a frolic of his own by ignoring the protocol of having the team doctor examine Sam.

I think - open to correction???

Yes I was thinking also along lines of negligence by coach then school vicariously liable for his actions. Thanks a million for your helpðŸ‘

DUMSURFER

spygirl wrote: »

Actually given the amount of new cases on it, VL could be a good shout to make an appearance. He regularly complains students don't understand it so could throw it in for this year for the craic.

I couldn't ask you, or anyone, what new cases there are for VL?

Working solo off a manual that's a few years old. I have the topic learnt but not trying to lose out on good marks for not being totally up to date, if I can avoid it

JCormac

For tort,

Does anyone have notes on Public Authority Liability by any chance? It's the only area I'm short on atm.

I can swap notes for any other topic!

Aoibhin511

DUMSURFER wrote: »

I couldn't ask you, or anyone, what new cases there are for VL?

Working solo off a manual that's a few years old. I have the topic learnt but not trying to lose out on good marks for not being totally up to date, if I can avoid it

English SC has 2 recent cases, various v Morrisons supermarket (vl for breach of data protection) and Various v Barclays ( vl for sexual assaults) no VL found in either case
And one Irish case Morrissey v HSE, HSE was not vl for lab screw up in cervicalcheck cases but they were in fact directly liable because of the way they adopted and promote cervicalcheck

Iso_123

Hey I was wondering if anyone could help me out with the above question! When I read it the torts that came to my mind were public nuisance/negligence(Tony's negligence) but as the question specifically asks for Laura's liability I would have also thought that an analysis of vicarious liability would be appropriate.

The problem is that question 5 of the same paper is on vicarious liability and I wouldn't have thought there would be 2 questions involving the same tort so I'm thinking I must be wrong somewhere..

Any help would be appreciated!

iamanengine

Iso_123 wrote: »

Hey I was wondering if anyone could help me out with the above question! When I read it the torts that came to my mind were public nuisance/negligence(Tony's negligence) but as the question specifically asks for Laura's liability I would have also thought that an analysis of vicarious liability would be appropriate.

The problem is that question 5 of the same paper is on vicarious liability and I wouldn't have thought there would be 2 questions involving the same tort so I'm thinking I must be wrong somewhere..

Any help would be appreciated!

You could probably mention nuisance, VL, concurrent wrongdoers, DOC and causation, seems like it has an intentionally wide scope. Definitely focus on Laura, discussing Tony in terms of liability would probably cost you marks

EAA123

Iso_123 wrote: »

Hey I was wondering if anyone could help me out with the above question! When I read it the torts that came to my mind were public nuisance/negligence(Tony's negligence) but as the question specifically asks for Laura's liability I would have also thought that an analysis of vicarious liability would be appropriate.

The problem is that question 5 of the same paper is on vicarious liability and I wouldn't have thought there would be 2 questions involving the same tort so I'm thinking I must be wrong somewhere..

Any help would be appreciated!

the book i have answers the question in relation to the rylands v fletcher rule and nuisance

question 5 is VL

Fe119

Does anyone have a link to the night before video for EU for last time? I'm assuming there isn't one this time