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

Fe123

Is the EU law institution question always generally the same? Could I just learn a sample answer off & be ok?

jjjjjop

Mc96 wrote: »

I applied for the paralegal positions they have back in 2018 and was on the panel then got offered it but by that stage I had an offer for something else that I went with instead

What number were you on the panel out of interest? Im placed number 8 atm and just wondering is there any chance of it being offered haha

Law101

Fe123 wrote: »

Is the EU law institution question always generally the same? Could I just learn a sample answer off & be ok?

Yeah more or less make sure the one you learn off has something to do with democratic deficit!

Mc96

jjjjjop wrote: »

What number were you on the panel out of interest? Im placed number 8 atm and just wondering is there any chance of it being offered haha

I was 5 in Dublin and got called about 11 months later, I was 8th in Cork but as I had turned down the Dublin one I was taken off all the panels so I'm not sure how quickly I would've been called for that. It's hard to judge though as it purely depends on vacancies as they come up, you might be lucky and get offered very quickly if there are a few people leaving around the same time or if those ahead of you turn it down! I definitely think you will be offered but just might take awhile. I know they say they only retain the panel for 12 months but I heard they often hold onto it for 2 years.

FE1Eire

Diamond_Hands wrote: »

How does one distinguish between a problem question relating to freedom of services verses freedom of establishment? I'm guessing they're mutually exclusive

I don't think there has been a question on establishments before either, there has only been one full question on services which focused on access to healthcare - Q6 October 2018 and it came in as an element of a PQ in Q5 October 2019 - as per the examiner's report!

jjjjjop

Mc96 wrote: »

I was 5 in Dublin and got called about 11 months later, I was 8th in Cork but as I had turned down the Dublin one I was taken off all the panels so I'm not sure how quickly I would've been called for that. It's hard to judge though as it purely depends on vacancies as they come up, you might be lucky and get offered very quickly if there are a few people leaving around the same time or if those ahead of you turn it down! I definitely think you will be offered but just might take awhile. I know they say they only retain the panel for 12 months but I heard they often hold onto it for 2 years.

5th is very good - congrats on that! Yeah its seems like a good job especially since these exams arent going that well haha.

Wonderstruck

law987 wrote: »

- ECHR: JA Pye case, shows our system is at the edge of what's acceptable
- Constitution: right to own property, without excessive encroachment
- clarify law: what constitutes active possession, if intentions are relevant
- unfair on paper title holders, no positive action required of squatters

- LRC Report 2004: squatter must apply for court order, gives owner chance to intervene

I'm the opposite, I'm completely pro-AP!



The UK changed their rules after JA Pye so it's 10 years and asking owner permission (registered property).



Insanity. AP clears up all the messed up titles for little bits of land at the ends of gardens and unused land. Think about all the new public policy aspirations for making use of derelict sites and vacant properties, empty site taxes etc - do paper owners really matter that much? Don't fix what's not broken :pac: (Just thought I'd give both sides)

FE1_2020_

Katniss1998 wrote: »

What did people talk about for question 1? I spent ages talking about consumer protection and then realised that it was a private sale!

Spoke about offer and invitation to treat and misrepresentation issues

Mc96

jjjjjop wrote: »

5th is very good - congrats on that! Yeah its seems like a good job especially since these exams arent going that well haha.

Best of luck with it, hopefully you'll get a call soon!

Ais20

Fair play to anyone that’s done a couple of exams in a row last week!! My head is still absolutely banging after that contract exam and now have to do it all over again for property:(

FE1_2020_

FE1new wrote: »

No problem. Here is what I have.

Dundalk Racing v Hyland 2017
The Court of Appeal has issued significant guidance on a plaintiff’s duty to mitigate his losses. A plaintiff who refuses a reasonable offer which would have the effect of avoiding unnecessary losses proceeds at considerable risk. This is especially so where the offer does not require him to forego rights claimed arising from the breach. Such a plaintiff may be refused damages he might otherwise be awarded. Significantly, however, the Court of Appeal also vacated the awards of damages. It did so because the bookmakers could have avoided the loss of profits they claimed. The principle applied is that a plaintiff cannot recover loss that could have been avoided had he acted reasonably. The plaintiff has a duty to take “all reasonable steps” to minimise his loss. What is reasonable in any case is a question of fact, though the standard by which the plaintiff is judged is not unduly harsh; the court should be pragmatic because it is the defendant, as wrongdoer, who put the plaintiff in that difficult position. So, for example, if the plaintiff has two reasonable ways of mitigating loss, the plaintiff is not unreasonable if it later transpires that the loss would have been less had he chosen the other option.
However, the obligation to mitigate loss may require the plaintiff to enter into a contract (even under protest) with the party who the plaintiff says was in breach of the earlier contract.

Thanks for posting this, I answered the damages problem question using the bulk of this for the mitigation of losses came in real handy thankfully wrote it down this morning and was thrilled to be able to put it to good use. Did anyone else answer this Q ? I never mentioned the Cullen case, but did address the remoteness of damages using the Hadley and Victoria cases etc

awsah

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

Thanks for posting this, I answered the damages problem question using the bulk of this for the mitigation of losses came in real handy thankfully wrote it down this morning and was thrilled to be able to put it to good use. Did anyone else answer this Q ? I never mentioned the Cullen case, but did address the remoteness of damages using the Hadley and Victoria cases etc

yes omg thank you for that I used it also,

I wrote down cullen and then I couldnt remember if that's where it fit in so I took it out but yes used the other two cases

FE1_2020_

awsah wrote: »

yes omg thank you for that I used it also,

I wrote down cullen and then I couldnt remember if that's where it fit in so I took it out but yes used the other two cases

Great stuff, hopefully that will be suffice then for both of us

Al1501

Property - Mortgages

Would anybody have a sample answer for how a bank may enforce its security? I can't get my head around it at all from the manual and I'd be happy to swap material

FE1new

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

Thanks for posting this, I answered the damages problem question using the bulk of this for the mitigation of losses came in real handy thankfully wrote it down this morning and was thrilled to be able to put it to good use. Did anyone else answer this Q ? I never mentioned the Cullen case, but did address the remoteness of damages using the Hadley and Victoria cases etc

No problem I was thrilled when it came up haha anyone watching that recording will see a me doing some form of jerky happy dance in my seat

caius97

Literally terrified I won't be covered for property with succession, finding, co-ownership, adverse possession and easements I feel sick ! anyone else only covering these topics ?

Ais20

caius97 wrote: »

Literally terrified I won't be covered for property with succession, finding, co-ownership, adverse possession and easements I feel sick ! anyone else only covering these topics ?

I’m doing the same but gonna have a quick look over family property just incase, gonna be a long night

fe1fi20

caius97 wrote: »

Literally terrified I won't be covered for property with succession, finding, co-ownership, adverse possession and easements I feel sick ! anyone else only covering these topics ?

i would add registration of land to that if you can. its quite simple and the same answer can be used for the question

FE1Eire

caius97 wrote: »

Literally terrified I won't be covered for property with succession, finding, co-ownership, adverse possession and easements I feel sick ! anyone else only covering these topics ?

I'm covering the same plus family property, found it very easy to wrap my head around and short enough!

RebeccaM90

caius97 wrote: »

Literally terrified I won't be covered for property with succession, finding, co-ownership, adverse possession and easements I feel sick ! anyone else only covering these topics ?

I'm doing the exact same topics. Praying we will be ok with these

ullaw22

caius97 wrote: »

Literally terrified I won't be covered for property with succession, finding, co-ownership, adverse possession and easements I feel sick ! anyone else only covering these topics ?

Doing these plus Family Property and Licences & Rights of Residence. Proprietary estoppel / estoppel licences is a nice little topic you could do independently of the whole chapter and slot into the odd succession Q / answer in note form.

tommytimber

Tort

I have the following topics, do you think I would be covered?

DOC/SOC/Causation
Negligent Misstatement
Nervous Shock
Solicitor's Negligence
Public Authority Liability
Employer's Liability
Vicarious Liability
Occupier's Liability
Defamation
Trepass to Person
Nuisance
Passing Off
Damages

Considering throwing in Liability for Animals and Rylands?

ElMo7

Does anyone have an condensed notes on Judicial review? TIA

AA21

Does anyone have an updated property grid including November 2020

eLawGirl

EU Law Topics

- Institutions
- General Principles and Human Rights Development
- Direct Effect and Member State Liability
- Free Movement of Goods + Services
- Free Movement of People + Workers and Citizenship

Is this safe for 5 questions if I know it well? I don't know should I go for Judicial Review also.

lawDani

eLawGirl wrote: »

EU Law Topics

- Institutions
- General Principles and Human Rights Development
- Direct Effect and Member State Liability
- Free Movement of Goods + Services
- Free Movement of People + Workers and Citizenship

Is this safe for 5 questions if I know it well? I don't know should I go for Judicial Review also.

I’m covering FMOG and MEQRS,
Judicial review,
Direct effect and MSL,
Institutions and
FM Servives and establishments

I’m leaving out General principles so I’m sort of taking the same gamble with the amount of topics covered 😫

Paraeagle

Here's an up to date property grid

BBall2015

My EU manual has 0 cases for Institutions - is this correct?

It's all just about the organisation/structure/powers of each institution and then the democratic deficit aspect - am I right in saying that?

Thank you!

flepetch

caius97 wrote: »

Literally terrified I won't be covered for property with succession, finding, co-ownership, adverse possession and easements I feel sick ! anyone else only covering these topics ?

i'm doing this plus family property, won't have the headspace to try do any more!

from my grid by doing these 6 topics it's almost guaranteed to have 5 questions, praying that is the case tomorrow!

Fe1nov

lawDani wrote: »

I’m covering FMOG and MEQRS,
Judicial review,
Direct effect and MSL,
Institutions and
FM Servives and establishments

I’m leaving out General principles so I’m sort of taking the same gamble with the amount of topics covered ��

Im covering
FMG
FMW/Citizenship
DE and MSL
JR
Institutions

half know Equality also incase its mixed in a problem Q