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

Fedone

For Q4 October 2018 on occupiers liability, how would people go about answering? I can’t decide whether the question relates to state of the premises, so to then consider it in terms of the 1995 act or would it concern activities and then discuss in terms of the common law? Or should you consider both?

EAA123

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

What essays are people predicting to come up on the Tort paper???

i have a feeling he will throw something unexpected as an essay as he usually does or else something really short that there is fa to write on after spending so much time revising lol

but expecting duty of care like the judicial developments and limitations

lawgrad49

Fedone wrote: »

For Q4 October 2018 on occupiers liability, how would people go about answering? I can’t decide whether the question relates to state of the premises, so to then consider it in terms of the 1995 act or would it concern activities and then discuss in terms of the common law? Or should you consider both?

Whenever you say discuss it in terms of the common law, could you clarify what you mean by that? Do you mean if it's an activity like bouncer hitting someone that is not due to state of premises so you analyse under Common Law?

I see the Night before notes talks about Common Law Regime also but my manual/sample answers only ever deal with OL questions under the 1995 Act. I thought the 1995 act replaces common law rules?

Could be missing something really obvious here but I've been doing sample answers on OL only ever mentioning the Act and related case law on deciding whether the Occupier has been reckless etc

Thanks!

EAA123

lawgrad49 wrote: »

Whenever you say discuss it in terms of the common law, could you clarify what you mean by that? Do you mean if it's an activity like bouncer hitting someone that is not due to state of premises so you analyse under Common Law?

I see the Night before notes talks about Common Law Regime also but my manual/sample answers only ever deal with OL questions under the 1995 Act. I thought the 1995 act replaces common law rules?

Could be missing something really obvious here but I've been doing sample answers on OL only ever mentioning the Act and related case law on deciding whether the Occupier has been reckless etc

Thanks!

i also have that the common law rules were replaced by the 1995 act.

section 2 (1) of the act provides for the replacement f the common law rules

Fedone

lawgrad49 wrote: »

Whenever you say discuss it in terms of the common law, could you clarify what you mean by that? Do you mean if it's an activity like bouncer hitting someone that is not due to state of premises so you analyse under Common Law?

I see the Night before notes talks about Common Law Regime also but my manual/sample answers only ever deal with OL questions under the 1995 Act. I thought the 1995 act replaces common law rules?

Could be missing something really obvious here but I've been doing sample answers on OL only ever mentioning the Act and related case law on deciding whether the Occupier has been reckless etc

Thanks!

So my manual states that you can be sued under either the common law or the act. Exactly as you’ve said if it’s an activity such as a bouncer hitting the claimant it’s considered under the common law rules (and the corresponding entrant categories and duties owed) whereas if the claim is to do with the state of the premises the 1995 act applies. I’m struggling to differentiate between whether the problem questions refer to the state or activity. I would probably mention both in my answer to be safe and give my opinion on which one I think it is but I know the examiner isn’t fond of candidates giving a complete overview of the topic

Fedone

Also for essay questions on occupiers I would be aware of the old common law rules to be able to compare the old law and how the act has changed / improved on the common law rules

iamanengine

Fedone wrote: »

So my manual states that you can be sued under either the common law or the act. Exactly as you’ve said if it’s an activity such as a bouncer hitting the claimant it’s considered under the common law rules (and the corresponding entrant categories and duties owed) whereas if the claim is to do with the state of the premises the 1995 act applies. I’m struggling to differentiate between whether the problem questions refer to the state or activity. I would probably mention both in my answer to be safe and give my opinion on which one I think it is but I know the examiner isn’t fond of candidates giving a complete overview of the topic

As far as I know in past exams the occupiers liability questions have never asked about activity it is always about state so you are probably safe to assume the question wants you to talk about the state of the premises i.e. the occupier's liability act.

It should be clear from the question anyway, an activity would be someone hitting the plaintiff whereas the state would be a danger on the land itself like tripping on a dodgy boardwalk or something

Iso_123

The 1995 Occupiers liability act only replaced common law rules for damage/injury done due to the state of the premises. The common law still applies for injury done from activities taking place on the premises. The problem Q's tend to be on the state of premises (ie the act) but doesn't hurt to have some common law cases etc just in case essay comes up or you're unsure which to apply!

Healyjhow

In regards to approaching a nuisance question could anyone clarify as my manual isnt great with approach. If discussing a private/public nuisance would you go through act/omission, damage/interference with rights in land, unreasonableness, causation, defence, special remedies for both? or does it differ? my manual has only the headings of obstruction and dangers for public nuisances and for private nuisances physical damage/ substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land and then interference with servitude's. Any clarity would be so so helpful and much appreciated.

LJones18

Healyjhow wrote: »

In regards to approaching a nuisance question could anyone clarify as my manual isnt great with approach. If discussing a private/public nuisance would you go through act/omission, damage/interference with rights in land, unreasonableness, causation, defence, special remedies for both? or does it differ? my manual has only the headings of obstruction and dangers for public nuisances and for private nuisances physical damage/ substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land and then interference with servitude's. Any clarity would be so so helpful and much appreciated.

My understanding for why they only mention Obstruction/Danger for Public Nuisance is because generally you are not interfering with anyone in particulars use/ enjoyment as it is public property, and rather you are just causing an obstruction or danger to other users of the public place?

I would still be going through the act/ omission etc, causation and any defence/ remedy. I am not sure if reasonableness applies here??

musicmanual123

Hi there, does anyone have a sample answer or a guide on how to answer EU March 2018 Q3 question on Direct Effect of Directives, a completely reverse to his usual question on it and nothing similar in manual, just a bit concerning as he is known to often repeat questions...

L.E.D

I rang earlier and youre not allowed bring a bag into the Hall or leave it outside, I'm just wondering why? Cause obviously people that are travelling that morning will be bringing notes etc so they'll have to leave them in their coat under the desk..strange requirement!

musicmanual123

Lcork23 wrote: »

Does anybody have a sample answer for EU law - Q2 in October 2019? It is an essay question on 'equivalence' and 'practical possibility' and the Pelati v Slovenia. The question seems to have come up a number of times in recent years but I do not have anything on it and there's nothing in my manual.

Having the same issue with this too, no mention in manual of this topic in general

Lawgrad101

L.E.D wrote: »

I rang earlier and youre not allowed bring a bag into the Hall or leave it outside, I'm just wondering why? Cause obviously people that are travelling that morning will be bringing notes etc so they'll have to leave them in their coat under the desk..strange requirement!

Did they mention any other alternative ie a cloak room or anything?

L.E.D

Lawgrad101 wrote: »

Did they mention any other alternative ie a cloak room or anything?

Nope, basically just said your jacket pocket for purse keys etc, but I'll have notes with me, so dunno how I'm gonna wing that!

L.E.D

Lawgrad101 wrote: »

Did they mention any other alternative ie a cloak room or anything?

And I'm just realizing that I'll have to take the legislation with me, so I will defo have a bag or some description

Lallers96

L.E.D wrote: »

I rang earlier and youre not allowed bring a bag into the Hall or leave it outside, I'm just wondering why? Cause obviously people that are travelling that morning will be bringing notes etc so they'll have to leave them in their coat under the desk..strange requirement!

Could pass on germs way too easy if a load of bags are thrown together

20082014

Hi,

My manual doesn't seem to have anything in it about the liability of children, would anyone be able to tell me is there much to this or what is needed?

I have some cases under the topic affirmative duties (Lennon, Curley v Mannion etc.) but I don't think I have enough if I had to write a paragraph on it tomorrow.

Thank you!

spygirl

20082014 wrote: »

Hi,

My manual doesn't seem to have anything in it about the liability of children, would anyone be able to tell me is there much to this or what is needed?

I have some cases under the topic affirmative duties (Lennon, Curley v Mannion etc.) but I don't think I have enough if I had to write a paragraph on it tomorrow.

Thank you!

That's pretty much all there is. Just state it's direct liability for failure to control the kids, not vicariously liability. LRC recomended expanding to include as a form of VL in 2009. Normal neg rules apply, DoC, SoC, reasonable foreseeability etc and causation, just parents are responsible for children in thier charge, applies to teachers or anyone acting in parenta locus or however we spell that

L.E.D

Lallers96 wrote: »

Could pass on germs way too easy if a load of bags are thrown together

This is my thinking too, that's why I rang, to see if I could leave my bag under the table with my jacket, I'll have to figure something out!

LJones18

In the case of Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc was the Scope test applied for VL , or the close connection test?

And am I correct in saying the test for scope was initially adopted in Farry v Great Northern Railway Co.?

nmurphy1441

LJones18 wrote: »

In the case of Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc was the Scope test applied for VL , or the close connection test?

And am I correct in saying the test for scope was initially adopted in Farry v Great Northern Railway Co.?

Close connection...

And Yes!

iamanengine

Best of luck guys, hard work is done! Have a feeling it’s gunna be a lovely paper!!

spygirl

iamanengine wrote: »

Best of luck guys, hard work is done! Have a feeling it’s gunna be a lovely paper!!

Nice to see not the only one burning the midnight oil. Thanks for that abd best of luck to you as well as well, I hope you're right lol.
Praying for deliverance or miracles at this stage.

vid36

Good luck everyone.

Lallers96

Sigh. Don't you just love being woken by inconsiderate people at 1am, and then again by screeching seagulls at 4am before an exam?

Guess it gives me time to have a look over stuff, I guess.

lsheehaneire

Good luck to all today in tort !

DFMCD190384

Good luck all you Tort sitters. Hope it's a nice paper 🀞

Lcork23

Regarding EU Citizenship - does host Member States have to pay student fees as seen in Brown or do they not have to? I have read so many different things I have confused myself. Would love it if someone could clear it up?

lsheehaneire

From what I understand they are not obliged to as per art 24 (2) of the directive BUT an EU citizen can rely on the principle of equal treatment and non discrimination on the grounds of nationality under Art 18 TFEU.
So basically if they are refused the grant / maintenance they can argue those two points....

Well.. usual torture of exam post-mortem - how did people find tort?

I thought the passing off q was lovely and defamation question ok.

Really struggled to identify topics for Murr? My answer will give me nightmares!

LawStudent1234

Can someone please tell me what question 6 was on?

nmurphy1441

LawStudent1234 wrote: »

Can someone please tell me what question 6 was on?

I did it on general negligence and liability for defect products act!

rightytighty

LawStudent1234 wrote: »

Can someone please tell me what question 6 was on?

Product Liability and Causation I went with anyway

law_struggles

Would you have gotten marks for talking about Nervous Shock for the question where he shocked the girl at work or is that completely wrong?

law_struggles

Would you have gotten marks for talking about Nervous Shock for the question where he shocked the girl at work or is that completely wrong?

LawStudent1234

rightytighty wrote: »

Product Liability and Causation I went with anyway

Thank god! Thanks a mill! I didn’t go into the material contribution test etc but did talk on causation do you think that this was needed?

rightytighty

law_struggles wrote: »

Would you have gotten marks for talking about Nervous Shock for the question where he shocked the girl at work or is that completely wrong?

I don’t know, I thought nervous shock was for witnesses of accidents and aftermaths etc so I went with duty of care, causation and remoteness, and damages for loss of earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering

rightytighty

LawStudent1234 wrote: »

Thank god! Thanks a mill! I didn’t go into the material contribution test etc but did talk on causation do you think that this was needed?

I just briefly discussed multiple source/material increase in risk because it was undetermined whether the steering fault caused the crash

Lallers96

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well.. usual torture of exam post-mortem - how did people find tort?

I thought the passing off q was lovely and defamation question ok.

Really struggled to identify topics for Murr? My answer will give me nightmares!

Literally the same i know I chose to answer it but what the f*ck was question 7 lol

Overall a decent paper, wouldn't have called it easy though. Would've loved a question on occupiers liability or nervous shock as I knew that inside out!

rightytighty

rightytighty wrote: »

I don’t know, I thought nervous shock was for witnesses of accidents and aftermaths etc so I went with duty of care, causation and remoteness, and damages for loss of earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering

I went with false imprisonment, nervous shock and vicarious/ employers liability! Oh god...

nmurphy1441

law_struggles wrote: »

Would you have gotten marks for talking about Nervous Shock for the question where he shocked the girl at work or is that completely wrong?

I would say it’s right in a sense although emotional distress would be more correct under trespass to the person

nmurphy1441

rightytighty wrote: »

I just briefly discussed multiple source/material increase in risk because it was undetermined whether the steering fault caused the crash

I also went down the route of duty to warm and possible duty to recall a defective product! Oh god!

rightytighty

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I also went down the route of duty to warm and possible duty to recall a defective product! Oh god!

Yeah I said those too those are both right!

nmurphy1441

Anyone do the limitations question and how did you go about it?

Ianmc97

law_struggles wrote: »

Would you have gotten marks for talking about Nervous Shock for the question where he shocked the girl at work or is that completely wrong?

I went with trespass to the person ( false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress with 5 lines on no assault as she didnt see the bucket of ice water) then possible nervous shock if she could show her injuries were shock induced and due to fear of being burnt rather than just psychological injuries due to being made fun of in work

What did people advise for old man Murr in the Park?

HappyKitten62

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What did people advise for old man Murr in the Park?

I used Liability for children then causation and remoteness

HappyKitten62

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

I used Liability for children then causation and remoteness

Oh gosh I did battery and public nuisance...like I said, that answer will give me nightmares

Louis Litt

That was an awkward paper. disappointed with it