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

channing90

What did people say for the question on the cigarette butts, I spoke about private nuisance and causation and wrote a paragraph on Rylands but said it didn’t apply dunno how right or wrong I was, anyone with a better understanding of it?

Ianmc97

channing90 wrote: »

What did people say for the question on the cigarette butts, I spoke about private nuisance and causation and wrote a paragraph on Rylands but said it didn’t apply dunno how right or wrong I was, anyone with a better understanding of it?

I went with private nuisance and negligence with small bit of remoteness and contributory negligence

Emmaslaw17

Beyond disappointed with that, thought the problem questions were tough to make sense of so had to do 2 essays - let's pray he likes my interpretation of defamation and social media... Tricky to apply knowledge to those questions

iamanengine

I answered Q 3 on nervous shock. I had planned on answer on infliction of emotional distress also but ran out of time.

It's very similar to a question that came up a sitting or two ago and I'm fairly sure the examiner gave marks for those who answered it on nervous shock and those who answered it on emotional distress so wouldn't be worried

Q6 was products liability I'm pretty sure

LawStudent1234

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

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

For question 8 I talked about how s.48 allows the law to bend etc but used basically all my notes aswell

iamanengine

For the limitations Q I mainly talked about the introduction of discoverability rules as well as disabilities, also briefly mentioned estoppel and fraud and then just wrote undue influence and a load of cases cos I ran out of time lol

channing90

channing90 wrote: »

What did people say for the question on the cigarette butts, I spoke about private nuisance and causation and wrote a paragraph on Rylands but said it didn’t apply dunno how right or wrong I was, anyone with a better understanding of it?

I went with trespass to land but accidentally threw in continuity requirement of nuisance. Also mentioned possibly contributory negligence but only wrote a sentence and said it was unlikely as it wasn’t a reasonably foreseeable consequence of her actions!

Lallers96

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

I used Liability for children then causation and remoteness

Same phew!

Also hey Defamation Again?! I mean, I'm glad I studied that but wow its practically a guaranteed Q now

JCormac

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

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

Completely disregarded the common law in the question. Damn.

Did anyone else go with the 1991 Act only?

HappyKitten62

Lallers96 wrote: »

Same phew!

Also hey Defamation Again?! I mean, I'm glad I studied that but wow its practically a guaranteed Q now

Yes! Like I figured with all the complicated facts it had to come under causation remoteness etc

vid36

Witnessing an accident, stadium disasters,fire, horrific scenes in the ER = Nervous Shock
Deliberating causing someone to experience shock induced trauma either as a joke or for other purposes=intentional infliction of emotional distress.

iamanengine

JCormac wrote: »

Completely disregarded the common law in the question. Damn.

Did anyone else go with the 1991 Act only?

I only discussed the Act really, I think it's fine tbh

Lallers96

Agree with some others that overall the papers problem questions were not as straightforward as other years.

I avoided that one with the practical joke like the plague.

I saw a sample before that talked about liability for practical jokes, then on top of that it was at work so potential vicarious liability and then the way it was worded I could see how people could easily get mixed up with nervous shock, although I felt it was the egg shell skull rule he was prodding you for. I could be wrong but that Q looked a stinker

law_struggles

vid36 wrote: »

Witnessing an accident, stadium disasters,fire, horrific scenes in the ER = Nervous Shock
Deliberating causing someone to experience shock induced trauma either as a joke or for other purposes=intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Thats me screwed so ha

iamanengine

vid36 wrote: »

Witnessing an accident, stadium disasters,fire, horrific scenes in the ER = Nervous Shock
Deliberating causing someone to experience shock induced trauma either as a joke or for other purposes=intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Not necessarily, apply the Kelly v Hennessy principles, recognised psychiatric illness, shock induced, by the act/omission of D, result in damage or apprehension of damage, foreseeability. That works perfectly for that Q

You could definitely apply infliction of emotional distress too tho

rightytighty

Lallers96 wrote: »

Agree with some others that overall the papers problem questions were not as straightforward as other years.

I avoided that one with the practical joke like the plague.

I saw a sample before that talked about liability for practical jokes, then on top of that it was at work so potential vicarious liability and then the way it was worded I could see how people could easily get mixed up with nervous shock, although I felt it was the egg shell skull rule he was prodding you for. I could be wrong but that Q looked a stinker

Yeah I went egg shell skull rule because he mentioned the fire in her original home, duty created because she warned him she couldn’t tolerate his behaviour, and then not too remote because once damage foreseeable in type but not extent liability imposed (he wanted to scare her) ,threw in special damages because she couldn’t work and had a medical team, and general damages for pain and suffering

HappyKitten62

I feel like once you have your case law, legislation, and some analysis - you’re over the mark. I think you fail because you didn’t do 5 qs or didnt answer what was asked.

Lallers96

Lallers96 wrote: »

Agree with some others that overall the papers problem questions were not as straightforward as other years.

I avoided that one with the practical joke like the plague.

I saw a sample before that talked about liability for practical jokes, then on top of that it was at work so potential vicarious liability and then the way it was worded I could see how people could easily get mixed up with nervous shock, although I felt it was the egg shell skull rule he was prodding you for. I could be wrong but that Q looked a stinker

Mentioned eggshell skull rule but also fletcher where it was said his fear wasn’t reasonable so wasn’t too sure how the 2 tied together

Lallers96

Can't wait for the examiners report on that question.

"Candidates would be best advised to answer the question that was asked"

iamanengine

Anyone do the res ipsa Q? Thought that was a beaut

HappyKitten62

When are results out?

What did people say for the defamation essay?

My manual only had 2 cases on social media - the Ugandan man v Facebook Ireland and tansey v Gill

HappyKitten62

iamanengine wrote: »

Anyone do the res ipsa Q? Thought that was a beaut

I did! Very doable

CiaranS93

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Think it is false imprisonment and Infliction of emotional suffering under Trespass. I briefly discussed VL but said it wasnt applicable due to no link to employees work duties and didn't satisfy Salmons test. Could be wrong.

Question 7 anyone? Wrote a page on battery then binned it as I realised it wasn't that

CiaranS93

channing90 wrote: »

What did people say for the question on the cigarette butts, I spoke about private nuisance and causation and wrote a paragraph on Rylands but said it didn’t apply dunno how right or wrong I was, anyone with a better understanding of it?

Nuisance, Negligence and briefly did Trespass to Land

Ianmc97

iamanengine wrote: »

Not necessarily, apply the Kelly v Hennessy principles, recognised psychiatric illness, shock induced, by the act/omission of D, result in damage or apprehension of damage, foreseeability. That works perfectly for that Q

You could definitely apply infliction of emotional distress too tho

that's exactly how I did it. the 5 rules are there if you can satisfy all of them you may have a claim. no rule about witnessing. only that it must be due to contemplated harm to you or someone else. witnessing is covered by 5th rule i.e. is there a duty of care to not cause but in this q its not a secondary victim

CiaranS93

These are my last 2 exams and overall that was definitely the worst. Not because it was particularly hard but because of how confusing the questions were. Even looking at the amount of differing opinions on questions scares me 😂

Lallers96

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What did people say for the defamation essay?

My manual only had 2 cases on social media - the Ugandan man v Facebook Ireland and tansey v Gill

I did Cassidy v Daily Mirror, Tansley v Gill and McKeogh v Facebook & Ors is a good one.

IgoPAP

FANTASTIC paper! Completely chuffed - genuinely couldn't have asked for better. My eyes went wide when I saw a full question of Res Ipsa and Defamation!

Lawgrad101

Will we get these results faster than the usual 6ish weeks?

iamanengine

Ianmc97 wrote: »

that's exactly how I did it. the 5 rules are there if you can satisfy all of them you may have a claim. no rule about witnessing. only that it must be due to contemplated harm to you or someone else. witnessing is covered by 5th rule i.e. is there a duty of care to not cause but in this q its not a secondary victim

Relieved someone agrees with me haha

But yeah think that’s spot on. Questioned allowed you to answer on multiple angles. The facts fit into the Kelly principles perfectly

Trespass to person was also a valid approach.

A very similar question to this was asked in either the March 2019 or October 2019 sitting and I remember people on here saying they got marks for both trespass or nervous shock

iamanengine

Onwards to EU!

nmurphy1441

iamanengine wrote: »

Onwards to EU!

Predictions???

Fitz_95

Did anyone else notice the hilarious Brooklyn 99 references? Jake and Amy, Charles and Terry and Gina in the park? Eoin Quill is clearly a B99 fan

godfather2

iamanengine wrote: »

Relieved someone agrees with me haha

But yeah think that’s spot on. Questioned allowed you to answer on multiple angles. The facts fit into the Kelly principles perfectly

Trespass to person was also a valid approach.

A very similar question to this was asked in either the March 2019 or October 2019 sitting and I remember people on here saying they got marks for both trespass or nervous shock

I did the same, Ns, not VL but possibly employers liability not safe place of work for not dealing with his pranks earlier as he had a history of it.

godfather2

On terry, anyone say not directly liable, but mother could be. Parents directly liable for childs torts, curley v mannion

bobsyourbrief

Thought that was a very fair paper, happy to get five questions done. Hopefully that's the last of the exams for myself (PLEASE!) - this thread was a great support system over the last 18 months or so.

Much appreciated to everyone who chimes in and helps each other. They can be a slippery road at times, but with bit of perseverance and patience you'll get there. Best of luck in EU, stay safe and healthy!

HappyKitten62

godfather2 wrote: »

On terry, anyone say not directly liable, but mother could be. Parents directly liable for childs torts, curley v mannion

I said that!

JCormac

godfather2 wrote: »

On terry, anyone say not directly liable, but mother could be. Parents directly liable for childs torts, curley v mannion

Yep, that's what I said

Lallers96

Fitz_95 wrote: »

Did anyone else notice the hilarious Brooklyn 99 references? Jake and Amy, Charles and Terry and Gina in the park? Eoin Quill is clearly a B99 fan

Not the first time it's happened either! Haha

Healyjhow

Don’t even want to post mortem that paper I really feeling I was grasping at straws ... all my case law knowledge just disintegrated and got stuck with two essay questions I couldn’t even re read cause I had the fear of my life hahahah anyone want to share what their studying for EU so I can attempt to redeem myself ?

godfather2

Healyjhow wrote: »

Don’t even want to post mortem that paper I really feeling I was grasping at straws ... all my case law knowledge just disintegrated and got stuck with two essay questions I couldn’t even re read cause I had the fear of my life hahahah anyone want to share what their studying for EU so I can attempt to redeem myself ?

Saving EU torture for a future date, my own case law fell out of my head in large chunks as well so feel your pain. Might not have been as bad as you fear. Pressure often makes diamonds.

Healyjhow

I hope so, I had to stop mid exam to have a good old laugh at myself ... can’t win them all I suppose

godfather2 wrote: »

Saving EU torture for a future date, my own case law fell out of my head in large chunks as well so feel your pain. Might not have been as bad as you fear. Pressure often makes diamonds.

Seeing as next round is just 8 weeks away surely these results will be well before the usual 6 weeks?

Louis Litt

Anyone know what kind of a marker they are for Tort? any stories of ppl coming out with the pass after a couple of poor questons

ihatethesea

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Predictions???

I second this, hope Tort went well for everyone! Any predictions for EU??

lsheehaneire

Is it definitely 8 weeks ?

lsheehaneire

lsheehaneire wrote: »

Is it definitely 8 weeks ?

Law soc said 6-15 October provisionally!

JCormac

I feel like a lot of those questions had multiple possible routes you could have taken.

Like Nervous Shock or Wilkinson or Employer Liability for the question on yer one in the office.

Or the tort of Nuisance or Negligence for the guy who couldn't stop smoking. Maybe it was just me that said Negligence. Oof

MrAlex123

Word of caution for any FE1 'first timers'-- a few of the top firms only accept trainees who complete all FE1s within a certain number of sittings (e.g. 3). Worth bearing in mind when planning your topics for October as today is likely to count as 1/3 of your sittings! Wish someone had told me this when I started