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

examsfe12021

could someone clarify for me in a quia timet question do we use the campus oil principles?? thank u !!!

awsah

examsfe12021 wrote: »

could someone clarify for me in a quia timet question do we use the campus oil principles?? thank u !!!

campus oil is only used for interlocutory inunctions so depending on the question you could discuss campus Oil in the context of interlocutory quia timet only

ruby1998

Anyone want to hazard a guess at company predictions? I don't think I can study tonight Constitutional has ruined me

nmurphy1441

Al1501 wrote: »

I've just gone back over my exam grid and past papers. Mortgages usually comes up as either a problem or essay asking how a bank may enforce security. Neither it nor co-ownership were on the November paper,. Given how consistent the paper normally is topic wise, if the usual examiner is back, would I be mad to say that succession, adverse possession, co-ownership, and mortgages would probably cover someone for property?

I was thinking the same! The family property essay has been up the last two sittings too! I think I’ll go over commercial mortgages only though and hope that that PQ comes up. Landlord & Tenant, Rights of Residence and estoppel licenses wasn’t up the last sitting either! That’ll do it for me along with what you said! With easements and finding!

nmurphy1441

ruby1998 wrote: »

Anyone want to hazard a guess at company predictions? I don't think I can study tonight Constitutional has ruined me

My own personal predictions would be PQ on DD and PQ on Directors Loans, PQ on examinership and PQ on liquidation in some form. Essays then would be Ultra Vires, Reform of CA, Foss v Harbottle and SLP(holding companies & subsidiaries)! Long shot I know!!!

awsah

awsah wrote: »

campus oil is only used for interlocutory inunctions so depending on the question you could discuss campus Oil in the context of interlocutory quia timet only

Actually I just read that szabo held that the campus oil principles were not of application but that was because he felt there was something distasteful in balancing the convenience of the defendant being able to carry on his business against the alleged health risks to the plaintiffs

He did hold that of he had applied the test he would have refused the injunction anyway as plantiffs had not established a serious issue to be tried

examsfe12021

awsah wrote: »

Actually I just read that szabo held that the campus oil principles were not of application but that was because he felt there was something distasteful in balancing the convenience of the defendant being able to carry on his business against the alleged health risks to the plaintiffs

He did hold that of he had applied the test he would have refused the injunction anyway as plantiffs had not established a serious issue to be tried

perfect thanks a mill !!!

FE1Pleb

What's the consensus on Corporate authority/capacity?

awsah

examsfe12021 wrote: »

perfect thanks a mill !!!

If you were stuck in the question for things to say you could mention them and then give reasons why they wouldn't apply. They were applied in irish bank v rte that same year so who's to say what's good law here!

flepetch

has anybody ever paid for an exam and not sat it? do you get a refund and pay again for the next sitting or is it a deferral sort of situation?

i'm really struggling mentally and dont think i can handle sitting tort next week along with the other exams i'm doing. would i be better off just sitting it and giving it a go rather than trying to get a refund from LS? i hear it can take months

Lealaw

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

My own personal predictions would be PQ on DD and PQ on Directors Loans, PQ on examinership and PQ on liquidation in some form. Essays then would be Ultra Vires, Reform of CA, Foss v Harbottle and SLP(holding companies & subsidiaries)! Long shot I know!!!

Surely something would be due up on corporate borrowing, it didn't appear in November. I have my fingers crossed for that. Also city colleges NBN said likely receivership but examinership is due a turn so one or other of them.

Kellyg248

fLawless123 wrote: »

Is anybody else not able to see Equity and the other subjects on the calendar on Betterexaminations?

I can only see equity, not company for friday.

Al1501

flepetch wrote: »

has anybody ever paid for an exam and not sat it? do you get a refund and pay again for the next sitting or is it a deferral sort of situation?

i'm really struggling mentally and dont think i can handle sitting tort next week along with the other exams i'm doing. would i be better off just sitting it and giving it a go than trying to get a refund from LS? i hear it can take months

If you don't sit an exam and don't log in, last year they refunded you because of the short notice of going online, but this year you need to apply in writing with evidence of why you couldn't sit it eg. doctors note, bereavement. And they won't refund until after the exams are complete, and it could take months to process if your application for cancellation is granted.

nmurphy1441

Lealaw wrote: »

Surely something would be due up on corporate borrowing, it didn't appear in November. I have my fingers crossed for that. Also city colleges NBN said likely receivership but examinership is due a turn so one or other of them.

I noticed that too! I’m basing my choice between receivership and examinership on which didn’t come up most recently so that’s why I’m going with examinership. A crystallisation question would be nice too though!

Iso_123

awsah wrote: »

Actually I just read that szabo held that the campus oil principles were not of application but that was because he felt there was something distasteful in balancing the convenience of the defendant being able to carry on his business against the alleged health risks to the plaintiffs

He did hold that of he had applied the test he would have refused the injunction anyway as plantiffs had not established a serious issue to be tried

In Szabo he did say that the same legal principles apply to QT injunctions as othe types of injunctions so for example if its an interlocutory (prohibitory) QT injunction the campus oil principles would apply. I think the only reason he didn't apply them here was because he said it was not appropriate to use the language 'balance of convenience' when the health of children was in question. So i think in the question if its just an ordinary commercial dispute and nobody's health is at issue - you can apply campus oil

Smiley283

Hi there, would anyone be able to send me an up-to-date tort grid?

And it would really help me out if you could share your notes on;

vicarious liablity
professional negligence?

I have passed all the other fe-1 exams so can trade notes and sample answers!

Lealaw

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I noticed that too! I’m basing my choice between receivership and examinership on which didn’t come up most recently so that’s why I’m going with examinership. A crystallisation question would be nice too though!

Yeah I found it odd CC NBN didn't even include examinership in their summary of the course, for me it is a nicer area but it has only come up I think 4 times. Sure hopefully Friday will be the 5th.

Crystallisation would be just amazing, but I think we would all do it.:pac:

mydogwentroof

Was the question on delayed prosecution for assault altered by thr fact thatbhe had been convicted already??? Like most the cases i had were about pre-trial prohibition not appeal??

flepetch

equity
for rescission, is it safe to just cover undue influence?

Murphs122

What is the spelling add on people are using?

caius97

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I’d throw in trespass the person and damages personally!!!

Smiley283 wrote: »

Hi there, would anyone be able to send me an up-to-date tort grid?

And it would really help me out if you could share your notes on;

vicarious liablity
professional negligence?

I have passed all the other fe-1 exams so can trade notes and sample answers!

Hope these are useful!

Smiley283

caius97 wrote: »

Hope these are useful!

Thank you so much, you're a star!

awsah

mydogwentroof wrote: »

Was the question on delayed prosecution for assault altered by thr fact thatbhe had been convicted already??? Like most the cases i had were about pre-trial prohibition not appeal??

Did the question say he was comvcited? I think it just referred to the trial judge which could have been said during voir dire and they he could challenge that decision before a trail went ahead,but none of that was revenant but I just don't remember the question mention an appeal of a conviction?

ruby1998

mydogwentroof wrote: »

Was the question on delayed prosecution for assault altered by thr fact thatbhe had been convicted already??? Like most the cases i had were about pre-trial prohibition not appeal??

I just mentioned in the end that he could appeal his conviction on the basis of the trial judge's failure to consider the impact of delay failure to seek out/preserve etc

Fe10000

Could someone please point me in the right direction for Corporate Borrowing - does the Revenue Commissioner rank in priority to a fixed charge over book debts? Where is this stated in legislation?

moeby

Fe10000 wrote: »

Could someone please point me in the right direction for Corporate Borrowing - does the Revenue Commissioner rank in priority to a fixed charge over book debts? Where is this stated in legislation?

I think I saw in the examiner report that Revenue Commissioner ranks in priority if the charge is not registered under s409 but also section 1001 of the Taxes Consolidation Act

Open to correction if this is wrong though

ruby1998

moeby wrote: »

I think I saw in the examiner report that Revenue Commissioner ranks in priority if the charge is not registered under s409 but also section 1001 of the Taxes Consolidation Act

Open to correction if this is wrong though

Yep I have this in my notes anyway - In order for the charge to be enforceable against the Revenue Commissioners, it must have been registered not only under S409 of the Act but also S1001 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997.

LawBoy2018

EQUITY

In relation to the joint deposit account/presumed resulting trust PQ that normally comes up:

Is the current position, under Lynch v Burke and AIB, that if the account is opened in the joint names of both parties and they both signed the relevant application, that the surviving party takes the monies via survivorship?

Would be very grateful if someone could let me know if I have that wrong. Thanks!

FE1s2021

Equity - for injunctions are people just covering the mareva, interlocutory and quia timet?

mydogwentroof

ruby1998 wrote: »

I just mentioned in the end that he could appeal his conviction on the basis of the trial judge's failure to consider the impact of delay failure to seek out/preserve etc

Would it impact his appeal thatbhe didnt raise the Braddish v. DPP issue at trial?? Semantics I know but I need to quell my brain haha