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

awsah

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

What did you conclude for that question?

I said she would need to show that her staying and working for that money was acting to her detriment, that she had other options in life! I duno I wasn't prepared!

nmurphy1441

Was the Succession PQ very straight forward or am I just thinking that?

FE1new

7 PQ questions on Contract and no easements or AP on Property. The mad Criminal exam as well. Jesus its been some round of exams lads.

SamWFE1

Hey guys just wondering how everyone answered the FHPA question. I went down the line of saying that there was no consent under S.3 but I was a bit lost on whether the mortgage would still be valid. The bank assumed that the wife was dead and the husband signed a declaration on this so does this mean that the bank did not have constructive knowledge of the wife's consent? I said that the mortgage may still be found invalid as the bank should have sought the death certificate, kind of along with the reasoning in Somers v Weir, but I bet there's a case out there dealing with this issue. Wondering if anyone can shed light on it?

Also, did anyone mention S.7? (That the non-owning spouse can pay the mortgage and stop the bank taking possession if they are willing and able to). I just mentioned this bit in passing saying that if the mortgage was found to be valid then this option was available to the wife.

Ais20

FE1new wrote: »

7 PQ questions on Contract and no easements or AP on Property. The mad Criminal exam as well. Jesus its been some round of exams lads.

I honestly can only laugh it off that my first set of FE1s were Criminal Contract and Property, me thinking they’d be okay cause past papers are usually similar!! Honestly the maddest set of exams

lawDani

Reading these and feeling for people that sat exams the last two days!
Not a lot of confidence regarding EU tomorrow ...

Just wondering if succession had its usual two questions on property this year?

SamWFE1

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Was the Succession PQ very straight forward or am I just thinking that?

I think it was yeah. I just briefly went over S.77 (mentioned SDM briefly but concluded that he had it). Went over S.78 requirements and concluded that they were all there. Also looked at revoking a will and that where a will is destroyed it has to be done with the intention to revoke and that this wasn't the case here.

I also mentioned legal right share at the end and said that this would be available to Harvey if he wanted to although I'd say that's completely irrelevant as the question was on the validity of the will.

How did you answer it?

Law101

BBall2015 wrote: »

Instead of doing the history & development of the fundamental rights, you're just focusing on human rights, proportionality, legal certainty etc? Am I understanding you correctly? I just want to narrow down the topic for me to learn! Thank you

Yeah non discrimination, fundamental rights, legitimate expectation, the right to an effective remedy proportionality, and legal certainty. The decisions that came out of these helped the court in their analysis of Eu Law.

I think its usually this type of question or a question on the Charter itself. however, the was these exams are going I wouldn't be surprised of he put it in again

RebeccaM90

Does anyone know do they grade the first 5 questions or will they grade the paper and take best 5? Totally misinterpreted an entire question

Creg12

awsah wrote: »

it seems to me that the examiners are under some sort of illusion that we have it easier this year and they have decided to make the exams harder rather than giving us a break in a pandemic! AP not showing up, for what the first time ever!! the only thing that will save me in this is if that first question was on priorpratry estoppel as I had not a notion what it was but didnt have the other essays studied!

Edit this to say that it just occurred to me that I jsut sat my 8th (and hopefully last) FE1 so im off to have a glass of wine on my balcony!

this exams suck but we are getting through them and anyone in the middle of them, you will get there eventually! you should all be so proud of the hard work you are doing! Keep it up!

Ap is what I consider a 90% topic
It’s not on every paper but if it’s not up easements is ... very unfair to not run one of the two big topics after succession

SamWFE1

lawDani wrote: »

Reading these and feeling for people that sat exams the last two days!
Not a lot of confidence regarding EU tomorrow ...

Just wondering if succession had its usual two questions on property this year?

Yeah 2 questions, one essay on admissibility of extrinsic evidence and a PQ on creating a valid will and revoking a will (I think) ((I hope)).

Paraeagle

Well done to all who have finished and best of luck to those with EU or Tort left to come- you’re on the home strait!

Was stuck for time on property but I don’t think I’ll ever improve my timing.

What I WOULD GIVE to be sitting outside in a beer garden with a lovely pint of Guinness to celebrate right now. Glass of mi wadi on the couch watching the Chase will have to suffice for now, I guess. :P

Creg12

FE1Hopefully1 wrote: »

Yeah it seems so - even in November property was a shock with no co- ownership

Seem to be making them harder since last March at least

No co-ownership
Didn’t realise this
Christ ...

Lawlawblahblah

Guys what was the second question Bridie and Mary on ??

FE1new

RebeccaM90 wrote: »

Does anyone know do they grade the first 5 questions or will they grade the paper and take best 5? Totally misinterpreted an entire question

They take the best 5. I wrote 6 in my criminal in November and when I asked for my paper the highest 5 were added together.

RebeccaM90

FE1new wrote: »

They take the best 5. I wrote 6 in my criminal in November and when I asked for my paper the highest 5 were added together.

Ok that makes me feel a whole lot better. Thanks for that.

nmurphy1441

SamWFE1 wrote: »

I think it was yeah. I just briefly went over S.77 (mentioned SDM briefly but concluded that he had it). Went over S.78 requirements and concluded that they were all there. Also looked at revoking a will and that where a will is destroyed it has to be done with the intention to revoke and that this wasn't the case here.

I also mentioned legal right share at the end and said that this would be available to Harvey if he wanted to although I'd say that's completely irrelevant as the question was on the validity of the will.

How did you answer it?

Slightly different... I can’t remember reading that Louis himself actually signed the will, it just mentioned Tom and Gerry signing it so I said it was invalid because of that. Went through the revocation and destruction and said it was not destroyed because there was no intention to revoke. Ultimately though, I said it was invalid because no mention of Louis signing and therefore died intestate and he is entitled to LRS owing to the 2010 act!

nmurphy1441

Lawlawblahblah wrote: »

Guys what was the second question Bridie and Mary on ??

I did it on an estoppel license!

FE1Eire

SamWFE1 wrote: »

Hey guys just wondering how everyone answered the FHPA question. I went down the line of saying that there was no consent under S.3 but I was a bit lost on whether the mortgage would still be valid. The bank assumed that the wife was dead and the husband signed a declaration on this so does this mean that the bank did not have constructive knowledge of the wife's consent? I said that the mortgage may still be found invalid as the bank should have sought the death certificate, kind of along with the reasoning in Somers v Weir, but I bet there's a case out there dealing with this issue. Wondering if anyone can shed light on it?

Also, did anyone mention S.7? (That the non-owning spouse can pay the mortgage and stop the bank taking possession if they are willing and able to). I just mentioned this bit in passing saying that if the mortgage was found to be valid then this option was available to the wife.

I think that point was aimed at Somers v Weir, where the husband said the wife gave consent in the separation agreement but actually had not and the bank had a responsibility to check this, so similar to the PQ they should have checked, so no consent - that's the route I went, very much consent based and wish I had mentioned S.7 now you say it

Hereforfe1

Does anyone know the last paper adverse possession wasn't on? Because my exam grid doesn't go back that far

SamWFE1

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Slightly different... I can’t remember reading that Louis himself actually signed the will, it just mentioned Tom and Gerry signing it so I said it was invalid because of that. Went through the revocation and destruction and said it was not destroyed because there was no intention to revoke. Ultimately though, I said it was invalid because no mention of Louis signing and therefore died intestate and he is entitled to LRS owing to the 2010 act!

I actually did mention that Louis didn't sign it as well but I just assumed the examiner had forgotten to put that in! I just mentioned it like the testator has to sign in the presence of the witnesses and that if he does not the will may be deemed invalid. I said it would be invalid if that was the case but concluded that if he did sign it it would be valid. Didn't mention intestacy but did mention LRS just in passing that the spouse could elect for the legal right share instead of the gift under the will as per Re: Urquhart and S.115.

Would the LRS not arise out of the Succession Act though? They were married I thought and I was under the impression that same-sex marriage Succession is governed under Succession Act and it's only civil partnerships under the 2010 Act? Not my strongest area though so could be wrong.

RebeccaM90

Hereforfe1 wrote: »

Does anyone know the last paper adverse possession wasn't on? Because my exam grid doesn't go back that far

2013

SamWFE1

FE1Eire wrote: »

I think that point was aimed at Somers v Weir, where the husband said the wife gave consent in the separation agreement but actually had not and the bank had a responsibility to check this, so similar to the PQ they should have checked, so no consent - that's the route I went, very much consent based and wish I had mentioned S.7 now you say it

Yeah that's how I did it too I just thought there might have been a case that I might have missed where the spouse is supposedly dead but glad to hear you thought the same. My answer on S.7 was literally 2 sentences just mentioned it at the end of the answer saying this is available to them if the mortgage is valid but didn't go into detail on it at all!

awsah

Creg12 wrote: »

No co-ownership
Didn’t realise this
Christ ...

I did a question in co ownership!!

BBall2015

Law101 wrote: »

Yeah non discrimination, fundamental rights, legitimate expectation, the right to an effective remedy proportionality, and legal certainty. The decisions that came out of these helped the court in their analysis of Eu Law.

I think its usually this type of question or a question on the Charter itself. however, the was these exams are going I wouldn't be surprised of he put it in again

Brilliant, thanks so much! Just want to make sure I'm covered! Yeah the way things are going, anything is possible :O

nmurphy1441

SamWFE1 wrote: »

I actually did mention that Louis didn't sign it as well but I just assumed the examiner had forgotten to put that in! I just mentioned it like the testator has to sign in the presence of the witnesses and that if he does not the will may be deemed invalid. I said it would be invalid if that was the case but concluded that if he did sign it it would be valid. Didn't mention intestacy but did mention LRS just in passing that the spouse could elect for the legal right share instead of the gift under the will as per Re: Urquhart and S.115.

Would the LRS not arise out of the Succession Act though? They were married I thought and I was under the impression that same-sex marriage Succession is governed under Succession Act and it's only civil partnerships under the 2010 Act? Not my strongest area though so could be wrong.

The LRS is the succession act but the equal spousal rights(same sex couple here) is under the civil partners 2010 act. So same rights because of the 2010 act in order to get LRS under s111 succession act

ruby1998

Well thank god for family property and for me remembering the registration essay I wrote weeks ago!! Well done everyone no AP but can’t say I wasn’t happy to not answer a Q on easements lol. Final FE1 done for me but will inevitably be back on here in October panicking. See y’all at results

SamWFE1

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I did it on an estoppel license!

I was 80% sure that the question was aimed at estoppel licenses which I know fairly well but didn't want to risk it in case I was wrong and had to do a different answer on something I'm not as comfortable with. Wish I trusted my gut

awsah

ruby1998 wrote: »

Well thank god for family property and for me remembering the registration essay I wrote weeks ago!! Well done everyone no AP but can’t say I wasn’t happy to not answer a Q on easements lol. Final FE1 done for me but will inevitably be back on here in October panicking. See y’all at results

Congratulations on finishing! Huge relief!

RaffRiff01

Imagine there's no FMOG or DE tommorrow because theres no AP on Property today or 1000 PQs and just 1 essay to choose from.. I would literally cry when that happens