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

fe12020oct

lawgrad49 wrote: »

His examiner report from March 2020, albeit brief, shows you what he is looking for if an essay like that came up again. It was a quote from the Kerins case, so it and O'Brien are 2 cases that show the courts will intervene (in extreme cases) in an area that traditionally would be seen to be non-justiciable. Then he said that people also discussed socio-economic cases where the courts have been hands-off- I'm thinking Sinnott, TD, etc here.

I know Carolan is very hard to predict but I don't know if a full essay would be dedicated to Justiciability again?

do you guys think it could come up as a full essay or would it be ok just to know the concept and a couple cases ? panicking lol

bigchungus

Has anyone joined the exam lobby for criminal yet? Just wondering can we set it all up now and still be reading notes before 10?

Lealaw

bigchungus wrote: »

Has anyone joined the exam lobby for criminal yet? Just wondering can we set it all up now and still be reading notes before 10?

Yes. I did it last time. Best of luck!

Fe1user5555

bigchungus wrote: »

Has anyone joined the exam lobby for criminal yet? Just wondering can we set it all up now and still be reading notes before 10?

Yep am in now!

awsah

Best of luck to everyone sitting criminal today, I hope it is a nice paper!

I am stuck in work today and then have to go home and pull an all nighter for constitutional tomorrow!

ruby1998

Best of luck everyone!!!

LeagleEagle747

bigchungus wrote: »

Has anyone joined the exam lobby for criminal yet? Just wondering can we set it all up now and still be reading notes before 10?

I'm entering now and then going to have breakfast and cry for a bit then show back up in front of my computer.

Good luck to all! Hopefully it's a nice paper!

Al1501

Best of luck to everyone sitting criminal today!

vkfe1

Company

How is everyone approaching Directors Duties? It's due as a PQ so i'm guessing the main duties under Section 228 and cases for each? And reckless and fraudulent training then....anyone think otherwise?

nmurphy1441

Thinking ahead here but anyone have the property exam from last November??? Be a great help!!!

nmurphy1441

vkfe1 wrote: »

Company

How is everyone approaching Directors Duties? It's due as a PQ so i'm guessing the main duties under Section 228 and cases for each? And reckless and fraudulent training then....anyone think otherwise?

I’m thinking it will more than likely be a problem question too... that’s what I’ve been focusing on along with director loans and restrictions!

vkfe1

Yeah and the transfer/sale of company assets as well sometimes comes up as a (b) with equal marks. I'll be shocked if its not a PQ - it comes up every second round and last time it was an essay.

Coopie

Constitutional
What topic comes does the Ucc and enet freedom of info come
Under?

fe12020grad

Does anyone know if perpetual injunctions has ever actually been examined? It doesn't even have a section in my exam grid so I'm unsure.

Iso_123

Equity

I'm so torn today on what to do! I can't decide whether to just focus on revising what I have/looking at papers for today and tomorrow or whether to add in estoppel and try cram it in today. I have the following covered:

DMC, strong v bird, 3 certainties, secret trusts, charitable trusts/cy pres, non charitable purpose trusts, resulting trusts, trusteeship, injunctions, undue influence, SP, rectification and satisfaction

(i left out tracing, constructive trusts and estoppel..)

Creg12

Iso_123 wrote: »

Equity

I'm so torn today on what to do! I can't decide whether to just focus on revising what I have/looking at papers for today and tomorrow or whether to add in estoppel and try cram it in today. I have the following covered:

DMC, strong v bird, 3 certainties, secret trusts, charitable trusts/cy pres, non charitable purpose trusts, resulting trusts, trusteeship, injunctions, undue influence, SP, rectification and satisfaction

(i left out tracing, constructive trusts and estoppel..)

i think u will have (at worst of times)

trusteeship
injunctions
charitable trusts/cy pres
undue influence OR SP (both of these could be on paper but def 1 will be )

so make sure u can answer the note Q and u should be ok and u have express trusts etc as back up

its still a chance not having estoppel but the chances are high you will be covered for 5 qs

legallyginger

Is anyone doing the Ryan V Governor of Mountjoy case he mentioned yday? Find it so confusing regarding contempt aspect

flepetch

Iso_123 wrote: »

Equity

I'm so torn today on what to do! I can't decide whether to just focus on revising what I have/looking at papers for today and tomorrow or whether to add in estoppel and try cram it in today. I have the following covered:

DMC, strong v bird, 3 certainties, secret trusts, charitable trusts/cy pres, non charitable purpose trusts, resulting trusts, trusteeship, injunctions, undue influence, SP, rectification and satisfaction

(i left out tracing, constructive trusts and estoppel..)

i'm gonna gamble and leave out estoppel, simply dont have time!
im going to try have as many sample answers done for the different note Qs, focus on injunctions, purpose trusts (charitbale/cypres), tracing, rectification, SP, UI, hoping that will be enough to have me covered

FEONE

The Oireachtas has enacted the Protection of Waterways Act 2020, The Long Title of the Act states
that it is “An Act to address the problem of over fishing in Irish rivers and to preserve the natural
resources of the State in its fish stocks,

Section 2 of the Act allows the Minister for the Environment to make a river Cessation Order, Such
an Order “has the effect of prohibiting all fishing on the designated river for a minimum of 10 years
or such longer period as the Order may prescribe,

Section 11 provides that a breach of such an Order is a criminal offence.

Can anyone tell me please is this asking about the executive power or legislative power with regards to proportionality?

fe12020oct

FEONE wrote: »

The Oireachtas has enacted the Protection of Waterways Act 2020, The Long Title of the Act states
that it is “An Act to address the problem of over fishing in Irish rivers and to preserve the natural
resources of the State in its fish stocks,

Section 2 of the Act allows the Minister for the Environment to make a river Cessation Order, Such
an Order “has the effect of prohibiting all fishing on the designated river for a minimum of 10 years
or such longer period as the Order may prescribe,

Section 11 provides that a breach of such an Order is a criminal offence.

Can anyone tell me please is this asking about the executive power or legislative power with regards to proportionality?

also interested in this especially regarding section 11!

ihatethesea

FEONE wrote: »

The Oireachtas has enacted the Protection of Waterways Act 2020, The Long Title of the Act states
that it is “An Act to address the problem of over fishing in Irish rivers and to preserve the natural
resources of the State in its fish stocks,

Section 2 of the Act allows the Minister for the Environment to make a river Cessation Order, Such
an Order “has the effect of prohibiting all fishing on the designated river for a minimum of 10 years
or such longer period as the Order may prescribe,

Section 11 provides that a breach of such an Order is a criminal offence.

Can anyone tell me please is this asking about the executive power or legislative power with regards to proportionality?

I think both:
- S2 Act allows Min to make an order prohibiting fishing for 10 years - Legislative
- Later in the question it says that the Minister introduced an order banning fishing for a further 25 years - Executive

ihatethesea

fe12020oct wrote: »

also interested in this especially regarding section 11!

My lecturer said that the criminal offence part could be just another aspect of proportionality and also an aspect of Locus Standi as if there is a risk of criminal conviction, the person wouldn't have to wait until a breach occurs to challenge the Act.

KingofTheFE1s

legallyginger wrote: »

Is anyone doing the Ryan V Governor of Mountjoy case he mentioned yday? Find it so confusing regarding contempt aspect

Had a scan through it after the webinar. Main thing I took from it was that the SC said the HC can dismiss a habeas corpus application if it is an abuse of the process. SC said the HC needed to be able to do this to protect there own processes. The appellant had lied in affidavits. I only scanned through the judgement so could have missed something important in it.

Coopie

Constitutional
Does anyone have a summary of the case
A/I/S v min for justice and equality 2020 IRC’s 70?

FE1_2020_

FEONE wrote: »

The Oireachtas has enacted the Protection of Waterways Act 2020, The Long Title of the Act states
that it is “An Act to address the problem of over fishing in Irish rivers and to preserve the natural
resources of the State in its fish stocks,

Section 2 of the Act allows the Minister for the Environment to make a river Cessation Order, Such
an Order “has the effect of prohibiting all fishing on the designated river for a minimum of 10 years
or such longer period as the Order may prescribe,

Section 11 provides that a breach of such an Order is a criminal offence.

Can anyone tell me please is this asking about the executive power or legislative power with regards to proportionality?

In regards to this, I would of had a more central focus of discussion on the potential breach of Cathy's constitutional right to earn a livelihood and discuss how that right is not absolute etc subject to regulation.

I would of briefly touched on the aspect that there was evidence of principles and policies laid down in the parent Act, but however would question whether or not there was "sufficient principles and policies" laid down in the Act in order to guide the Minister in making the River Cessation order for 25 years.

In no way am I saying that is the right approach but that's how I would of dealt with that question and not got too hung up on the legislative/executive aspect. Certainly, open to any correction If I am possibly overlooking the significance of that!

FE1_2020_

ihatethesea wrote: »

My lecturer said that the criminal offence part could be just another aspect of proportionality and also an aspect of Locus Standi as if there is a risk of criminal conviction, the person wouldn't have to wait until a breach occurs to challenge the Act.

I had also thought about the locus standi aspect too, and was kinda thinking of mentioning that she may not have locus standi to challenge the Act as she does not own the property adjoining the river and thus only has mere permission/licence from the farmer to fish there.

FE1Hopefully1

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

I had also thought about the locus standi aspect too, and was kinda thinking of mentioning that she may not have locus standi to challenge the Act as she does not own the property adjoining the river and thus only has mere permission/licence from the farmer to fish there.

Would a license not constitute a right or an interest thus satisfying the standing rule

Iconic10

are people covering un due delay for constitutional or will it prob not come up ?

Iconic10

ihatethesea wrote: »

I think both:
- S2 Act allows Min to make an order prohibiting fishing for 10 years - Legislative
- Later in the question it says that the Minister introduced an order banning fishing for a further 25 years - Executive

what year is this question?

FE1_2020_

FE1Hopefully1 wrote: »

Would a license not constitute a right or an interest thus satisfying the standing rule

I would agree, but I would argue in this respect that she did not pay any fee towards the farmer for her permission/license to be on his land fishing thus no real aspect of her property rights being infringed. She did pay for her trading licence to operate in the local market but that can be vitiated subject to regulation of the common good etc.