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

Diamond_Hands

eLawGirl wrote: »

This conversation will scare us all omggg. I noticed when I was finished the question it actually said advise on remedies for the garage or the state

the word - or - wasn't in bold or too obvious or anything but it made me think is it one or the other not marks for both did anyone else notice that

How would a remedy question be answered though? My manual on this section doesn't have anything on it.

Iso_123

eLawGirl wrote: »

This conversation will scare us all omggg. I noticed when I was finished the question it actually said advise on remedies for the garage or the state

the word - or - wasn't in bold or too obvious or anything but it made me think is it one or the other not marks for both did anyone else notice that

I just don't think he would be this sneaky though because he divided it into two parts saying (i) the garage and then (ii) the state

If he did want you to just talk about one of the other surely he would have made it more obvious? at least I hope anyway

54321zz

Iso_123 wrote: »

I just don't think he would be this sneaky though because he divided it into two parts saying (i) the garage and then (ii) the state

If he did want you to just talk about one of the other surely he would have made it more obvious? at least I hope anyway

I did this question in class with a lecturer. She said you were supposed to mention both- no claim from garage (had to talk about direct effect, Van Gend en Loos principles etc) but could claim from MS under MS liability

nmurphy1441

For a development of the DOC essay so... would I be right to say to start with D v S, Anns, Caparo, Ward and finally Glencar?

Diamond_Hands

54321zz wrote: »

I did this question in class with a lecturer. She said you were supposed to mention both- no claim from garage (had to talk about direct effect, Van Gend en Loos principles etc) but could claim from MS under MS liability

Are the claims against the state not two separate claims? One for breach of direct effect, and the other for member state liability? Does MS liability not usually apply where some technical justifications exclude DE claim? I argued the state was DE liable but not MS liable

eLawGirl

Diamond_Hands wrote: »

How would a remedy question be answered though? My manual on this section doesn't have anything on it.

I had a bit on member state liability giving rise to damages from an EU Concentrate book that I threw down but I'm not totally confident thats correct tbh

Wish we had the paper its hard to remember the online questions and how they are phrased

Law101

Iso_123 wrote: »

I just don't think he would be this sneaky though because he divided it into two parts saying (i) the garage and then (ii) the state

If he did want you to just talk about one of the other surely he would have made it more obvious? at least I hope anyway

Yes I agree, and it actually stopped me from talking about damages etc regarding graham. I think it was one of those questions that if you think too much you’ll end up in a muddle but it was actually straight forward. - I think? Eek

54321zz

Diamond_Hands wrote: »

Are the claims against the state not two separate claims? One for breach of direct effect, and the other for member state liability? Does MS liability not usually apply where some technical justifications exclude DE claim? I argued the state was DE liable but not MS liable

Ooh sorry I actually have no idea. Honestly have erased it from my mind hahaha cramming for tort has begun

Fe1user5555

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

For a development of the DOC essay so... would I be right to say to start with D v S, Anns, Caparo, Ward and finally Glencar?

I’d also talk about UCC v ESB at the end with the discussion of ‘back to first principles’ and ‘evolution by analogy’

Iso_123

Diamond_Hands wrote: »

Are the claims against the state not two separate claims? One for breach of direct effect, and the other for member state liability? Does MS liability not usually apply where some technical justifications exclude DE claim? I argued the state was DE liable but not MS liable

I genuinely have no clue if this is right but that wasn't what I said.. I only used DE for the part on the garage and also talked about indirect effect because this can be used horizontally but basically said there was no DE of the directive against the garage.

then I only talked about MSL for the second part on the state like frankovich and factortame etc and said that once causation is determined (ie that the court is satisfied that the accident wouldn't have occurred had the directive been implemented because graham would have used the hands free and had control over the vehicle) that Ireland could be liable in damages under MSL.

This was always my understanding of how to answer these questions but I've never done EU law before these exams so I could be way off

caius97

I wrote that no MSL due to the fact that the car was 4 years old so when he bought it technically it would have pre-dated the Directive anyway so couldnt be liable ... :Z

murray132

eLawGirl wrote: »

I had a bit on member state liability giving rise to damages from an EU Concentrate book that I threw down but I'm not totally confident thats correct tbh

Wish we had the paper its hard to remember the online questions and how they are phrased

It did say or but I just presumed you had to answer both and then state which she should use to bring a claim

Law101

Oh yeah I went to the bathroom and came back into the room and my four year old was sitting on my chair lol. Clearly he wasn’t cheating lol should I call the law school? Or not bother?

Diamond_Hands

Iso_123 wrote: »

I genuinely have no clue if this is right but that wasn't what I said.. I only used DE for the part on the garage and also talked about indirect effect because this can be used horizontally but basically said there was no DE of the directive against the garage.

then I only talked about MSL for the second part on the state like frankovich and factortame etc and said that once causation is determined (ie that the court is satisfied that the accident wouldn't have occurred had the directive been implemented because graham would have used the hands free and had control over the vehicle) that Ireland could be liable in damages under MSL.

This was always my understanding of how to answer these questions but I've never done EU law before these exams so I could be way off

Your answer is perfectly fine and you'll get a pass mark here. For the first part, I talked about the direct effect of directives and how the Garage was a private body not subject to the authority of the state and therefore not liable. For the second part, I said the state was directly effective as the implementation period had passed. I also looked at MS liability and said the breach was not sufficiently serious enough to be a manifest disregard of states obligation (Factortame; Brinkmann).

Dancing Obsession

tommyq94 wrote: »

Same here, felt like I was treading water for my last few questions.

I was really banking on Judicial Review to save me but there was no sign of it...

I was shocked not to see JR. Pointlessly I tried to find it and nothing ðŸ˜
I did 2 questions quite good I think. FMOG, Direct effect with state liability, FMOW and citizenship I d say medium. Institutions and Charter I rewrote from the legislation. I think I ll see u in October.

Diamond_Hands

Law101 wrote: »

Oh yeah I went to the bathroom and came back into the room and my four year old was sitting on my chair lol. Clearly he wasn’t cheating lol should I call the law school? Or not bother?

You're fine!

eLawGirl

murray132 wrote: »

It did say or but I just presumed you had to answer both and then state which she should use to bring a claim

omgg thank you yeah it looks like it asked us to write about both there thank you. I noticed it at the end and was worried since it's online it didn't pick it up properly but it would have been clearer

Time to forget all about it now and deposit EU out of my short term memory, hope everyone enjoys their evening and best of luck in Tort tomorrow

FE12020Law

Can anyone give a summary to on ESB v UCC ?

tippertruck

For the Charter question, I literally had no case law which used the actual charter. Ended up using cases which were related to the ECHR, Kadi, Carpenter, Connolly.

Did anyone do likewise??

nmurphy1441

Literally just reading this...

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/supreme-court-esb-found-negligent-for-ucc-flood-damage

FE12020Law

But does it mean the test for Negligence has now changed since the court said "We are not sure… that the use of that part of the test … to the effect that a court must determine whether it is “just and equitable” in all the circumstances to impose a duty of care, is really of any great assistance", I can't believe im only hearing about this case today, the day before the exam

nmurphy1441

FE12020Law wrote: »

But does it mean the test for Negligence has now changed since the court said "We are not sure… that the use of that part of the test … to the effect that a court must determine whether it is “just and equitable” in all the circumstances to impose a duty of care, is really of any great assistance", I can't believe im only hearing about this case today, the day before the exam

This case has been going on about 10 years now. The duty of care exists because of the control the ESB had over the danger and it’s one of the limited situations were the duty confers a benefit!

Fe1user5555

FE12020Law wrote: »

But does it mean the test for Negligence has now changed since the court said "We are not sure… that the use of that part of the test … to the effect that a court must determine whether it is “just and equitable” in all the circumstances to impose a duty of care, is really of any great assistance", I can't believe im only hearing about this case today, the day before the exam

The main thing I took from it with regards to duty of care was the test laid down in the SC referring to ‘back to first principles’ and ‘evolution by analogy’. The back to first principles part just means that when deciding whether to impose duty in a new and novel area, one must look to see if there are any fundamental guiding principles laid down in existing law which could inform approach to be taken. If no such principles are found, you proceed with the evolution by analogy approach which is the incremental approach from Caparo / Glencar. O’Donnell J said that without principles to be deduced from decided cases? The fair just and reasonable aspect of the duty allowed for judges to import their own personal subjective views

FE12020Law

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

The main thing I took from it with regards to duty of care was the test laid down in the SC referring to ‘back to first principles’ and ‘evolution by analogy’. The back to first principles part just means that when deciding whether to impose duty in a new and novel area, one must look to see if there are any fundamental guiding principles laid down in existing law which could inform approach to be taken. If no such principles are found, you proceed with the evolution by analogy approach which is the incremental approach from Caparo / Glencar. O’Donnell J said that without principles to be deduced from decided cases? The fair just and reasonable aspect of the duty allowed for judges to import their own personal subjective views

That was very helpful, thanks

Fe123

My internet dropped in Eu today for about 10 minutes & obviously I was logged out of the system. I called the law soc literally in tears panicking & they just said to wait for it to come back and call back if it doesn’t come back in 15 mins (it came back I plugged out the WiFi and plugged it back in) but will this adversely affect my grade or anything? They took my name (not sure why)

fe1ki5

Sorry to post this when exams haven't even finished but as a complete procrastinator i'm trying to keep a bit of momentum going.

I already have Tort, criminal and i just sat property and contract.

Possible resits aside... wondering what would be the best to pick up next out of:-
Company
EU
Constitutional
Equity

preferably something a little less information dense than Contract would be great!

Fe123

fe1ki5 wrote: »

Sorry to post this when exams haven't even finished but as a complete procrastinator i'm trying to keep a bit of momentum going.

I already have Tort, criminal and i just sat property and contract.

Possible resits aside... wondering what would be the best to pick up next out of:-
Company
EU
Constitutional
Equity

preferably something a little less information dense than Contract would be great!

I’ve all mine completed now (probably not passed lol) but if I was doing them again out of those 4 I would do EU & Company before I’d do equity or cons. I thought I done great in equity & only got 52% it’s really harshly marked. Constitutional is basically 3 subjects combined into one with the volume of material. Company & EU are predictable

Fe1user5555

fe1ki5 wrote: »

Sorry to post this when exams haven't even finished but as a complete procrastinator i'm trying to keep a bit of momentum going.

I already have Tort, criminal and i just sat property and contract.

Possible resits aside... wondering what would be the best to pick up next out of:-
Company
EU
Constitutional
Equity

preferably something a little less information dense than Contract would be great!

If you’re planning on doing 2 and 2 again I would split up constitutional and equity - constitutional is massive and equity is tricky to pass. I would do EU and equity together and then company and constitutional!

BookFast

Fe123 wrote: »

My internet dropped in Eu today for about 10 minutes & obviously I was logged out of the system. I called the law soc literally in tears panicking & they just said to wait for it to come back and call back if it doesn’t come back in 15 mins (it came back I plugged out the WiFi and plugged it back in) but will this adversely affect my grade or anything? They took my name (not sure why)

The same happened to me in contract. I just sent an email explaining what happened so that there's a paper trail in case there's any issue with my paper/result in the future. But I wouldn't worry about it too much, it definitely won't affect your grade

Fe1user5555

God tort is so content heavy