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

ruby1998

bigchungus wrote: »

by classification do you mean characterisation, as in the indicia set out in Melling? that's what I did and hopinggg that was the right thing to do

Yes!!

BookFast

bigchungus wrote: »

I freaked out for 30 seconds then it brought me back to the very start of the BE process - had to show ID, do the smile thing. Incredibly frustrating and the first time it didn't work, aswell, but after that I didn't have any trouble. I rang the LS after just to explain it to them and they said they had tonnes of people ringing them about it

Disaster, was the time taken off your total time then?

flepetch

Zlatorog wrote: »

I think it does and would put it down if answering a QT injunction. In Szabo, Geoeghegan J considered the Campus Oil criteria but thought that it was inappropriate given the balancing of the plaintiff childrens lives and the business in the case. I think if there was an amenity of public good threatened, you could apply Campus but if there was something more of a threat to human life etc you could follow on from Geoghegan in that case and say that the Court may not apply Campus due to the consideratiosn. I think the reports have noted that there is confusion with the test in any event so once you give reasoning for the caselaw you're applying, it should be fine I hope!

my notes also mention that the Campus Oil principles were applied in the earlier case of National Irish Bank v RTE "but Geoghegan's position in Szabo is good law" because even if the principles were applied, he still would not have granted the injunction.

LawBoy2018

lnmbk wrote: »

(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong) but yes, from what I understand you need Campus Oil principles AND szabo v ESAT digiphone which the test is proven substantial risk of danger (as applied in Ryanair v Aer Rianta, Garraghy v Bord na gCon, Murphy v Irish Water)

Are you sure that we need to discuss the Campus Oil principles? Have they not been replaced by the likes of Szabo/Ryanair etc.?

bigchungus

BookFast wrote: »

Disaster, was the time taken off your total time then?

No thankfully not. I presumed it would be but then realised I'd finished the exam at 13:07 so they gave me the minutes back

fe12020oct

anybody have the most important cases for non justiciability? would really appreciate!

123456789j

Hi all, quick q re legislation. Don’t have a constitution for tomorrow, opw never got back to me. I assume should be no issues just printing it out? Say criminal today and by looks of it, you aren’t prompted to show anything!

FE1Hopefully1

123456789j wrote: »

Hi all, quick q re legislation. Don’t have a constitution for tomorrow, opw never got back to me. I assume should be no issues just printing it out? Say criminal today and by looks of it, you aren’t prompted to show anything!

They expressly refer to the permitted legislation which is the official ones and no mention of printing off

But I’d email and say that the OPW never got back to you and you have to use printouts

Buttonbean123

Not sure if this is of any benefit to anyone but I logged on at 11am for today’s exam and in November for two of my exams and it still allowed me the full 3.5 hours. Just after finishing my exam there at 2.15pm so just in case anyone’s looking for extra cramming time on the morning of the exam!

Lallers96

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

honestly didn’t think it was the nicest paper I’ve seen hahaha

Yeah I didn't think that was a kind paper. I find the problem questions very long in Criminal law and there was little choice, with only 1 essay question and 7 problem Qs which is abnormally low

Lallers96

Buttonbean123 wrote: »

Not sure if this is of any benefit to anyone but I logged on at 11am for today’s exam and in November for two of my exams and it still allowed me the full 3.5 hours. Just after finishing my exam there at 2.15pm so just in case anyone’s looking for extra cramming time on the morning of the exam!

Jesus I didn't know you could do that haha.

EmmaO94

123456789j wrote: »

Hi all, quick q re legislation. Don’t have a constitution for tomorrow, opw never got back to me. I assume should be no issues just printing it out? Say criminal today and by looks of it, you aren’t prompted to show anything!

OPW also didn't send me out mine, after promising to on the 10th. Luckily I bought a slightly out of date secondhand one nline so will just be using that, but I'd say contact the law soc and you should be able to print it out. Not impressed with the OPW at all

Iso_123

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Are you sure that we need to discuss the Campus Oil principles? Have they not been replaced by the likes of Szabo/Ryanair etc.?

The campus oil principles are still correct to apply for interlocutory QT injunctions. You need to discuss Szabo/ryan air cases then also campus oil principles. from my understanding Szabo basically says that the legal principles for QT injunctions are the same as for other type of injunctions (so campus oil test if its prohibitory and strong case etc if mandatory) but with an added evidential burden of showing there is a substantial risk of future injury. So legal principles the same but evidential burden higher.

the RTE case I think can be read as meaning that if the substantial risk of injury is undisputed/obvious you can just apply campus oil without need for proving higher evidential burden

Hamerzan Sickles

Leaving out Trial in Due Course of Law and covering pretty much everything else. Surely that will be enough to give me 5 questions.

Creg12

Art 49 - Freedom of Establishment - is it ever asked in EU?

As far I can see the last time it was asked was 2014 with the old examiner? Am I right in thinking this ?

Thanks

ElMo7

Hey guys, just after sitting criminal and now facing into a long night of constitutional. What are people putting their main focus on? Thanks

fe1prep2021

ElMo7 wrote: »

Hey guys, just after sitting criminal and now facing into a long night of constitutional. What are people putting their main focus on? Thanks

Locus Standi
Family
Non - justiciability
AG
Interpretation
Equality

And whatever else I can fit in, Im the exact same!! Hopefully there's enough time to cram

NewFe1

If an essay question was to come up on the president would you discuss in detail the article 26 reference?

cailinbeag00

Did anyone have difficulty with the exam freezing persistently? I did over the first hour and a half and it really bogged me down. Then it froze for well in excess of five minutes so at that stage I rang the Law Society as it didn’t look likely to come good. Told to log out etc. All fine afterwards and it ran really smoothly but found it so frustrating. I Don’t think it was my laptop or an internet issue!

Fe1user5555

If I was to focus on one of non justiciability or family which would people think is preferable ?

FEONE

NewFe1 wrote: »

If an essay question was to come up on the president would you discuss in detail the article 26 reference?

Yeah absolutely ! You can bring it in as a power of the president and focus on the limitations and consequences of a 26 reference

Lealaw

cailinbeag00 wrote: »

Did anyone have difficulty with the exam freezing persistently? I did over the first hour and a half and it really bogged me down. Then it froze for well in excess of five minutes so at that stage I rang the Law Society as it didn’t look likely to come good. Told to log out etc. All fine afterwards and it ran really smoothly but found it so frustrating. I Don’t think it was my laptop or an internet issue!

I'd send an email so you have it in writing just in case there is any issue with your script. I don't think they keep a track of candidate calls. Very annoying, hopefully it didn't put you off.

FE1s2021

fe1prep2021 wrote: »

Locus Standi
Family
Non - justiciability
AG
Interpretation
Equality

And whatever else I can fit in, Im the exact same!! Hopefully there's enough time to cram

Do people think there is going to be a whole question on non-justiciability?

NewFe1

FEONE wrote: »

Yeah absolutely ! You can bring it in as a power of the president and focus on the limitations and consequences of a 26 reference

Perfect thanks! Was thinking there wasn't really enough for an essay without it

Lcork23

Did anyone get logged out of the exam today? It happened to me a couple of times and I was freaking out.

Fe1Student20

Had to get Criminal out of the way first today before looking at Eoin Carolan's seminar. Are people putting a big last minute emphasis on covering what he discussed?

To go one further, would anyone be so kind as to have notes on the cases he discussed, and willing to share?

EmmaO94

Anyone that's sat Constitutional before, how much sway does Carolan's lecture actually have on the paper?

Scared of lulling myself into a fall sense of security!

MylesH

I'm only doing undue influence (equity exam) if it comes up as a problem question - would it be crazy to leave out the 3rd party/banking/marriage aspect on the grounds that it came up in that form last sitting?

Severely lacking in time

LawStudent999

I think I'm going to take a fairly balanced approach for Constitutional so as not to put all my eggs into one basket. Focusing mainly on the notes I have as I just felt as though it was a bit late in the day to suddenly bank on Carolan's lecture especially not knowing how much weight it carries. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some reference to what he discussed but I won't be banking on the paper replicating the seminar. At least I hope not anyway as I feel it is a bit late to be placing all my focus on the areas he has discussed as opposed to balancing the work out.

MylesH

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Anyone that's sat Constitutional before, how much sway does Carolan's lecture actually have on the paper?

Scared of lulling myself into a fall sense of security!

Think he stated in yesterday's lecture that he discussed 'Kerins case' and 'O'Brien's case' in last year's lecture.

Think those are the only two cases he mentioned discussing (in yesterday's lecture anyway) at his 2020 lecture so maybe worth seeing if they were referenced in last year's papers?

Not hugely familiar with Constitutional myself so can't confirm (registered for tomorrow's exam but not sitting it & haven't studied constit. since December)

Either way I would doubt the lecture cases would be 100% bankers, surely?