Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I answered on undue influence:
Advise the bank on what is Class 1, Class 2b (class 2a irrelevant to banks)
How Bank of Nova Scotia, Bank of Ireland v. Smyth (s.3(1) Protection of Family Home Act 1976), Ulster Bank v. Fitzgerald
whether Etridge no.2 or the Barclay's Bank v. O'Brien case would apply for spouses here.
How to rebut class 2b presumption - Carroll v Carroll, Gregg v. Kidd, Prendergast v. Joyce (nature and effect)
Finally drew up my guidelines for the bank namely:
1. Independent, competent, adequate + legal
advice - safe than sorry - make sure the solicitor explains the nature and effect to her.... no constructive notice to bank. (plus lawyers get to earn a bit more money - hey, we are in a professional exam, not the idealistic law school ones )
2. Talk to wife independently - see if this raises any suspicion of actual undue influence = bank should be fully safe
0 -
What did people say in regards to question 5. The first part of the trust (subject to my sincere wish) was precatory Language (Re: Sweeney and Re: Humphries)
What did people say for the Ballysalmon residuary clause. I know it was there for a reason but i just didnt know how to use the facts. Was the 250K to be given to them wholly because the trust failed under certainty of objects
I could be completely wrong (answered this question but only covered two of three certainties in my studies )
I said the 250k trust to friends and relatives failed for certainty of objects (we're not England - no MacPhail v. Doulton here)...and
the residual clause may be okay then (certainty of property subject matter) otherwise standard answer is transaction void due to uncertain subject.
Worded it in such a way that I said looking at it in isolation they would fail (my guess - no idea what the caselaw is) but that they can argue since the friend/relative trust failed they know exactly how much property they can get + what beneficial share they'll get = 3 certainties are present = valid express trust.
Time to start revising constitutional!0 -
-
-
-
-
I could be completely wrong (answered this question but only covered two of three certainties in my studies )
I said the 250k trust to friends and relatives failed for certainty of objects (we're not England - no MacPhail v. Doulton here)...and
the residual clause may be okay then (certainty of property subject matter) otherwise standard answer is transaction void due to uncertain subject.
Worded it in such a way that I said looking at it in isolation they would fail (my guess - no idea what the caselaw is) but that they can argue since the friend/relative trust failed they know exactly how much property they can get + what beneficial share they'll get = 3 certainties are present = valid express trust.
Not bad I'd say - that was my weakest question and I wasn't exactly sure what the answer was. the nephew being executor and a potential beneficiary freaked me a bit. I went through the cases anyway, Broadway Cottages, McPhail, Baden, and here Parker, Davoren and her relatives education trust, Re Godfrey for friends and all that. I was a bit all over the place on applying it though. Was happy to see Mareva and Quistclose and Trustee's Duties popping up, know those well. Going for a walk now from the Ibis for an hour before a few hours reading constitutional.
Hall and facilities etc all fine, couldn't be faulted, clocks for the timeless and everything. 1006 candidates altogether it seems, going by the numbers.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I was thinking of doing Mareva too but decided against the question as it seemed to be horribly limited to just demonstrating the relevance of the intention to dissapate assets to avoid judgment/recover...I thought my book only had three cases on that.
What about the proprietary estoppel one? I just did that one in outline for "fun" (my 6th question) and noted that the wife didn't have any assurance, reliance or detriment - seemed like a really simple question on reflection (deceptively simple?)
The son who had suffered all the work etc never established PE and thus had no interest in the land yet... this woman comes in and tries to establish PE for him and then take it away from him? Doesn't seem all that "equitable" to me (I mentioned that equity is discretionary after all...)
Made the point that "those who come to proprietary estoppel must come with dirty (labourer's) hands"
(though of course I also outlined common expectation and imperfect gift PE)
Who knows, I might score higher for that outline than for a "full" answer I did :P - the quistclose trust one was rather short for me - I only had three cases in my book...0 -
-
-
I was thinking of doing Mareva too but decided against the question as it seemed to be horribly limited to just demonstrating the relevance of the intention to dissapate assets to avoid judgment/recover...I thought my book only had three cases on that.
What about the proprietary estoppel one? I just did that one in outline for "fun" (my 6th question) and noted that the wife didn't have any assurance, reliance or detriment - seemed like a really simple question on reflection (deceptively simple?)
The son who had suffered all the work etc never established PE and thus had no interest in the land yet... this woman comes in and tries to establish PE for him and then take it away from him? Doesn't seem all that "equitable" to me (I mentioned that equity is discretionary after all...)
Made the point that "those who come to proprietary estoppel must come with dirty (labourer's) hands" (though of course I also outlined common expectation and imperfect gift PE)
Who knows, I might score higher for that outline than for a "full" answer I did :P - the quistclose trust one was rather short for me - I only had three cases in my book...
the question about the wife was mentioned in the exam report b4, the cd v cjf case - sc overruled the hc in a similar case and said wide couldnt claim on a suspected interest due to the lack of express promise!!
totally messed up the three certainties q i think, said the 2nd trust wud fail due to administrative unworkability...did the residiual trust fail then???
0 -
the question about the wife was mentioned in the exam report b4, the cd v cjf case - sc overruled the hc in a similar case and said wide couldnt claim on a suspected interest due to the lack of express promise!!
totally messed up the three certainties q i think, said the 2nd trust wud fail due to administrative unworkability...did the residiual trust fail then???
I went with it failing too as dud not satisfy the test in re Parker in which case it is not a trust and it goes to those beneficiaries under the residual clause .0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement