FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) No trading

FE1swag

Constitutional Qs

RE Gorry V Min Justice & Equality

What is the difference between the 2017 Gorry case and the 2020 Gorry/ABM case mentioned in the constitutional seminar today?

vkfe1

flepetch wrote: »

company
starting to freak out a bit over company, feel like i really don't have the space in my brain to retain any information. does anyone have any predictions that could help me narrow down topics? much appreciated

It's a fairly predictable paper. Know Corporate borrowing and Directors duties really well. I'm doing an essay plan for Soloman V Soloman (piercing the veil), Winding Up, Receivership, Restriction. Minority Shareholder Oppression comes up a lot - it came up last year but don't rule it out.

mcdurh

lawDani wrote: »

I would also feel more confident if I had that much covered too. So far I have those with the exclusion of trustees and probably undue influence at this stage. Ahhhhhh.....

Would you like notes on Undue Influence and Trustees? Mine are very condensed so might be helpful.

law1234567

Fedone wrote: »

Constitutional
He mentioned the Ivana’s Bacik case where they specifically outlined the methods of constitutional interpretation so I’d have that ready.
He also mentioned a case concerning the AG that I hadn’t come across so could be worth covering well also.

do you remember what the AG case was?

law1234567

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Here's the slides from today!

you are a star thank you!!

EmmaO94

law1234567 wrote: »

you are a star thank you!!

You're so welcome!

I found the seminar helpful & hopefully very telling!

Will eat my hat if there isn't a q on Friends...

MylesH

Finding Tracing in equity quite confusing tbh. It reads like double-dutch in my manual.

Does anybody have an essay on Tracing they'd be willing to send on?

Doing Equity and EU so I can swap notes!

awsah

law1234567 wrote: »

do you remember what the AG case was?

it was O shea v The legal Aid board

it has to do with teh AG scheme that anyone who has dealt with legal aid in the courts would probably know about, it is usually in habeas applications but they also grant it for high court bails (which is where I have seen it referenced). Basically the AG pays for the person in custody to bring these cases.

it is separate to legal aid in that this is being provided for by the AG. This case involved a refusal to pay after the judge recommended a payment be made under that scheme (for reference when you make a high court bail application you must specifically request a recommendation under the AG scheme or you don't get paid). The legal aid board argued that it was decrictionary by the AG and not mandatory. Court said that this scheme "filled a gap" and there would be constitutional consequences if it did not exist as people would not be able to take up these applications

law1234567

awsah wrote: »

it was O shea v The legal Aid board

it has to do with teh AG scheme that anyone who has dealt with legal aid in the courts would probably know about, it is usually in habeas applications but they also grant it for high court bails (which is where I have seen it referenced). Basically the AG pays for the person in custody to bring these cases.

it is separate to legal aid in that this is being provided for by the AG. This case involved a refusal to pay after the judge recommended a payment be made under that scheme (for reference when you make a high court bail application you must specifically request a recommendation under the AG scheme or you don't get paid). The legal aid board argued that it was decrictionary by the AG and not mandatory. Court said that this scheme "filled a gap" and there would be constitutional consequences if it did not exist as people would not be able to take up these applications

thanks a million!

LegalEagle21

Constitutional

What topic does the Friends case relate to?

Lawwww2020

Are we allowed to tab legislation? Can’t find anything on the website to clarify!

Murphs122

Yes you can Tab and Highlight, just no writing.

fe1fi20

FE1Pleb wrote: »

Anyone willing to share their own notes from the conference?
Will front the cost of it. DM me

I have the slides if you want them

bluerthanu

Lawwww2020 wrote: »

Are we allowed to tab legislation? Can’t find anything on the website to clarify!

you could have a small family inside in the legislation for all they know. you don’t have to show the legislation. tabbing and highlighting fine.

Fedone

LegalEagle21 wrote: »

Constitutional

What topic does the Friends case relate to?

Unenumerated rights- specifically the right to a healthy environment, standing of companies & non justiciability

neon123

Hi folks, are people seeing their upcoming exams on Betterexams yet?

LegalEagle21

Constitutional

Does anyone have notes on the Friends case they’d be willing to share? Just realised a few people think it’s going to come up and I’m stuck for time to research it. Thanks

fe1fi20

neon123 wrote: »

Hi folks, are people seeing their upcoming exams on Betterexams yet?

yeah, just my one for tomorrow. not constitutional yet tho

neon123

fe1fi20 wrote: »

yeah, just my one for tomorrow. not constitutional yet tho

Cool, thanks.

DUMSURFER

awsah wrote: »

could they not mark you down for talking about irrelevant topics? it has been noticed in so many examiner reports that people spoke about things that were not relevant to the particular facts of the question. I am really just asking if people think that the examiner looks to give marks like this? I was worried in the last sitting to leave notes as I was afraid I would be marked down for "writing everything I know about a topic"

No because it's not actually part of your answer. Just make sure you put a line under it. I just hit underscore until it spanned the width of the page in November and then started my answer as normal.

I mean, it's still your rough work but just under a better heading. It doesn't matter if the information is relevant in that section as long as the irrelevant stuff doesn't bleed into your actual answer. It's actually a plus if you have information that isn't relevant in your 'answer notes' as long as you don't include it in your actual answer. Why? Well...

(1). The first thing you're showing the examiner is how vast your knowledge is by having all that information, whether relevant or irrelevant, in your answer notes.

(2). When you include the relevant stuff and leave out the irrelevant stuff in your actual answer, it shows the examiner that you're not just writing down everything you know. You're being very deliberate with the information that you use and that you are attempting to answer the particular question asked.

Now, if you're more comfortable using whatever sticky note system they have in place, by all means, but it's just a tip and one which I know for a fact saved my ass in one of the exams last November.

nicolesd

re justiciability in FIE V GOV if essay comes up would we be talking about the non jus in like Kerins and obrien ect or what exactly would we be mentioning?

awsah

DUMSURFER wrote: »

No because it's not actually part of your answer. Just make sure you put a line under it. I just hit underscore until it spanned the width of the page in November and then started my answer as normal.

I mean, it's still your rough work but just under a better heading. It doesn't matter if the information is relevant in that section as long as the irrelevant stuff doesn't bleed into your actual answer. It's actually a plus if you have information that isn't relevant in your 'answer notes' as long as you don't include it in your actual answer. Why? Well...

(1). The first thing you're showing the examiner is how vast your knowledge is by having all that information, whether relevant or irrelevant, in your answer notes.

(2). When you include the relevant stuff and leave out the irrelevant stuff in your actual answer, it shows the examiner that you're not just writing down everything you know. You're being very deliberate with the information that you use and that you are attempting to answer the particular question asked.

Now, if you're more comfortable using whatever sticky note system they have in place, by all means, but it's just a tip and one which I know for a fact saved my ass in one of the exams last November.

can I ask how you know this as a fact? and I am not trying to be argumentative or anything, I am genuinely curiours. it doenst make sense to me that you would not be marked down on something but could be marked up on it.
but I appreciate that that is your method and it works for you so no need to deviate, I am curious how you know that it brought you up in marks tho!

awsah

chris1231 wrote: »

I've heard of other exams that ask you to use a mirror to show computer prior to exam.. Did this happen in the October fe1s?

All the mirrors I have are attached to walls so might be a problemo

you can just take a picture with your phone and show them...simples!

PostHog

Hi, does anyone have a quick synopsis or note on the impact of the decisions of DPP v McNamara and DPP v Zoltan Almasi in relation to the defense of provocation?

Fe1user5555

chris1231 wrote: »

I've heard of other exams that ask you to use a mirror to show computer prior to exam.. Did this happen in the October fe1s?

All the mirrors I have are attached to walls so might be a problemo

Nope got no prompts to do anything!

flepetch

vkfe1 wrote: »

It's a fairly predictable paper. Know Corporate borrowing and Directors duties really well. I'm doing an essay plan for Soloman V Soloman (piercing the veil), Winding Up, Receivership, Restriction. Minority Shareholder Oppression comes up a lot - it came up last year but don't rule it out.

thank you for this!
its so easy to get lost in all the different chapters and types of questions that come up, got very overwhelmed today as i'm sure we all are!

KingofTheFE1s

O' Shea v Legal Aid Board.

Does anyone know if this case had any ramifications for the AG specifically. Don't think that was really clarified in the webinar. Had a quick scroll through it there and cant really see how the judgement would impact on the AGs role other than maybe independence to decide which cases are eligible under the scheme. Dont have time to read the full judgement at this stage.

FEONE

Hi, I was thinking of going into constitutional with the following;
Equality
Family
Liberty
Seperation of Powers
Interpretation
AG
Mootness/Locus Standi
Personal Rights
Religion
Property

Going to have a brief knowledge of expression with assembly and association and due course also. Am I missing anything substantial? Really trying to leave out Oireachtas also just don't like that topic.

ihatethesea

FEONE wrote: »

Hi, I was thinking of going into constitutional with the following;
Equality
Family
Liberty
Seperation of Powers
Interpretation
AG
Mootness/Locus Standi
Personal Rights
Religion
Property

Going to have a brief knowledge of expression and due course also. Am I missing anything substantial? Really trying to leave out Oireachtas also just don't like that topic.

Do you think Right to Silence? I really am thrown after all the Webinar talk, need to do a major re-think! But what you have looks good!

FEONE

ihatethesea wrote: »

Do you think Right to Silence? I really am thrown after all the Webinar talk, need to do a major re-think! But what you have looks good!

Oh yes I forgot about that! Ill try cover the bare minimum on it. Id imagine if it did come up it would be with due course, and I'm going to try avoid that if I can.