FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

boomtown84

tm48 wrote: »

Hi guys, just getting a bit confused with this part of the question. Does this part relate to freedom to provide services or does is fall under Article 34 being a measure that restricts trade?!

Part one was customs duty/internal taxation
Part two was freedom of establishment
Part three was freedom to provide services

sorchauna

brannid3 wrote: »

Hey! The tips I received from a prep course were Corporate Personality, Ultra Vires, All of directors , Winding up for inability to pay debts, receivership problem question, way in which company can pass resolutions essay and corporate borrowings.

I might add a bit of shares to that as well. Obviously the tips cannot be relied on but they are giving me a plan on what to cram. Just working off the past papers now, trying not to take anything too new in!

My tip was the same but examinership was flagged with receivership so will cover that in case you get a question liek a few years ago when it was a the three insolvent chapters compare/contrast! Company is merging into one in my head, is passing resolutions the meetings of shareholder chapter?

I left out transfer of shares, its my biggest gamble as its been up the last few papers but just didnt have the time!

CClaw

does anyone know what topics came up in the march sitting for property?

CClaw

sorchauna wrote: »

My tip was the same but examinership was flagged with receivership so will cover that in case you get a question liek a few years ago when it was a the three insolvent chapters compare/contrast! Company is merging into one in my head, is passing resolutions the meetings of shareholder chapter?

I left out transfer of shares, its my biggest gamble as its been up the last few papers but just didnt have the time!

Same, left out share, because if i was do the shares, i d cover everything, shares/transfer/shareholder's protection, just to be safe, but it's way too much !

if you do all on directors - 1Q
borrowing - 1Q
examinership/Receivership - 1Q
winding up - 1Q

then do Separate legal personality/lifting the veil or ultra vires /ways to pass resolutions then at least one of them would come up ( I hope ) rather than risking shares come up as a big Q.. if i am making sense

sorchauna

CClaw wrote: »

Same, left out share, because if i was do the shares, i d cover everything, shares/transfer/shareholder's protection, just to be safe, but it's way too much !

if you do all on directors - 1Q
borrowing - 1Q
examinership/Receivership - 1Q
winding up - 1Q

then do Separate legal personality/lifting the veil or ultra vires /ways to pass resolutions then at least one of them would come up ( I hope ) rather than risking shares come up as a big Q.. if i am making sense

Also the fact Courtney is so random there always seems to be one question a year that comes from a little paragraph in the manal that no one will ever know.

i thought the same, either commit to shares/transfer/shareholder's protection or leave it and I though better things to focus one. I say its a fair assement of what Im doing. Alto the state of my Companies Act makes me sacred, the amount of colour tabs going on! I say separate legal personality will be it and maybe also ultra vires. After all it will be reformed and Courtney is big behind the reform. I think last time I checked only Pillar A was published for the Reform Bill and not Pillar B where ultra vires is in.... My head hurts now!

Catriona Murray

Hi all, hope study is going well. I was wondering if anyone would like to swap FE1 exam solutions. I am looking for any of the March 2012 solutions in any subject. I have all others back as far as 2005 as well as typed concise lecture notes for all subjects (on some subjects I have notes from 3 different sources as well as Griffith lecture note handouts). Also have exam papers and examiners reports for all subjects up to Mar 2012.

Fe1exams

that makes two of us who have everything bar march 2012 answers...
did all the rev courses hand out model march 2012 answers??

oh yeah and if you have oct 2012 answers ill give u my left arm too

sofakingood

In regards to Undue Influence will the work I have prepared to answer the question in the equity exam be sufficient to answer a question on the topic if it appears on the contract paper?

Ps hope study is going well.

JLex

Hi, any tips from Griffith or Indo for equity?

Doing :

Injunctions: all
SP
Rectifictation
UI
Express Trust: all
Charitable Trust
Cy-Press
Resulting Trust
Cohabitees
Trusteeship: all
Quistclose

I hope i will get 5 out of this...

FOOKED

Hi guys,

Wondering if anyone has a Tort exam grid they wouldn't mind sending me as I'm really stuck. I can send on a company grid if that helps. I'd really appreciate it!

Thanks,

Catriona Murray

Hi would anyone have Griffith College solutions for Criminal and Tort for Oct 2011 that they would be willing to swap.

cfonz

Hey, would anyone be able to narrow down equity for me to the most important topics I need to cover for the exam, really feeling the pressure now!

ryan606

Hey just wondering what people are covering for Tort. I'm doing:
Negligence
Res Ipsa Loquiter
Employer's Liability
Vicarious Liability
Occupier's Liability
Products Liability
Defamation
Trespass to the Person
Trespass/Nuisance/Rylands
Defences
Damages

Is there any other major topic that people think should def be covered? I'm leaving out economic loss since it came up last yr but alot of people seem to be on about it.

je77rey

The Companies Act I have for the exam is the 1963-2006 version, is it okay to bring that one in as oppose to the 1963-2009 version? Also its not the student version.

sorchauna

je77rey wrote: »

The Companies Act I have for the exam is the 1963-2006 version, is it okay to bring that one in as oppose to the 1963-2009 version? Also its not the student version.

The year does not matter but they may be strict of the student version as the student version has more infomation omitted like footnotes etc compared to the normal edition. I'd email the law society to confirm for ease of mind.

je77rey

Does anybody have the March 2012 examiner's report for Contract? I've plenty of stuff I can swap if anyone is looking for anything.

AH88

Just wondering if anyone has any recent EU sample answers from 2010 on-wards? I have recent answers in most other subjects if needed.

walrusgumble

colonel1 wrote: »

banterful wrote: »

Hi all, finding tort and EU really tough going at this stage. Have finished notes etc but just finding it so hard to retain the sheer amount of material! Any one else having issues with these subjects? If so what are they leaving out, or does anyone who's passed these ones have any advice for how best to approach them?

Though the others were tough too I really feel Tort & EU have the widest breadth of material to cover - well maybe except constitutional!

Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated & might stop me throwing all my notes out the window tomorrow - fe1s sure are a grrrrind!

EU is a nightmare IMO. I am leaving out equality and the case note question and just glancing briefly at free movement of capital. What are you leaving out?

I did tort last March and I left out defamation. A lot in tort but not too bad once you spot the issues in the question. Val Corbett in Independent College gave very good tips.

For the love of god do not leave out case notes! It is a handy set of points.from my experience, he asks the same set out cases each time so know those you will be grand.

Amre17

ryan606 wrote: »

Hey just wondering what people are covering for Tort. I'm doing:
Negligence
Res Ipsa Loquiter
Employer's Liability
Vicarious Liability
Occupier's Liability
Products Liability
Defamation
Trespass to the Person
Trespass/Nuisance/Rylands
Defences
Damages

Is there any other major topic that people think should def be covered? I'm leaving out economic loss since it came up last yr but alot of people seem to be on about it.

Hi,
I think your list of topics looks good cause im doing the same! Except I havnt done any of the torts relating to land and instead I'm doing professionsl negligence.. I'm not even doing the full chapter on it - just going to do the medical negligence part.. starting it right now.. Pressures well on at this point!
also havnt done res ipsa loquitur.. But I've had a quick look at animals liability.. Maybe have a browse through the chapter - short and straightforward and could be due a run - might pop up in a problem Q??

crosshair12

Long time lurker, first time caller...

The head is fairly melted with the FE-1's at this stage, I'm hoping someone can clear this up for me...

In the March 2010 tort paper, question 3 concerns occupiers liability. The entrant in question has a car breakdown outside a house, and walks up an icy garden path towards the house to seek help. I'm not sure how he'd be categorised: as a visitor, recreational user or trespasser for the purposes of the 1995 Act.

I'm sure the answer is obvious, but I can't see the woods for the trees at this late stage.

Hope the study is going well for everyone.
Thanks.

itsonlybla

crosshair12 wrote: »

Long time lurker, first time caller...

The head is fairly melted with the FE-1's at this stage, I'm hoping someone can clear this up for me...

In the March 2010 tort paper, question 3 concerns occupiers liability. The entrant in question has a car breakdown outside a house, and walks up an icy garden path towards the house to seek help. I'm not sure how he'd be categorised: as a visitor, recreational user or trespasser for the purposes of the 1995 Act.

I'm sure the answer is obvious, but I can't see the woods for the trees at this late stage.

Hope the study is going well for everyone.
Thanks.

Under the 1995 Act, visitors are present with permission, or as of right. Recreational users are present to engage in a recreational activity with or without permission, free of charge. Everyone else is a trespasser, like the entrant in the March 2010 question.

That question also has some Rylands going on.

tm48

Hi guys, could someone briefly give me the answer to this part of the question. While the report says that it is indirect discrimination, the only cases on indirect discrim I have are on Article 45 workers. As far as equal treatment is concerned EU nationals and spanish nationals are treated in a comparable manner?! Just getting all confused...would be great if someone one would clarify this! Thanks...

crosshair12

itsonlybla wrote: »

crosshair12 wrote: »

Long time lurker, first time caller...

The head is fairly melted with the FE-1's at this stage, I'm hoping someone can clear this up for me...

In the March 2010 tort paper, question 3 concerns occupiers liability. The entrant in question has a car breakdown outside a house, and walks up an icy garden path towards the house to seek help. I'm not sure how he'd be categorised: as a visitor, recreational user or trespasser for the purposes of the 1995 Act.

I'm sure the answer is obvious, but I can't see the woods for the trees at this late stage.

Hope the study is going well for everyone.
Thanks.

Under the 1995 Act, visitors are present with permission, or as of right. Recreational users are present to engage in a recreational activity with or without permission, free of charge. Everyone else is a trespasser, like the entrant in the March 2010 question.

That question also has some Rylands going on.

Thanks for that!

The examiner's report does mention that some students went on a tangent about Rylands. I don't see an 'escape' to a place outside the occupier's control, though...

Loulu

Fe1exams wrote: »

"So does this mean that if your claim to an easement relies on a user period pre Dec 2009 based on the old rules and you fail to take a case within the 3 years that you lose your entitlement to the easement and have to start the user period again from scratch??"

I think you are referring to the definition of “interruption”:>> means interference with, or cessation of, the use or enjoyment of an easement or profit à prendre for a continuous period of at least one year, but does not include an interruption under section 37... see s33 of the lclra 2009
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0027/print.html#sec33

Draw a timeline - old rules 20yrs - new rules 12/30/60....

Where did u get the three yrs from?

Sorry for the delayed reply! No I wasn't referring to interruption of use, I got the bit about three years from s38 of the LCRA 2009 which provides the details of the transition period:

"38.— In relation to any claim to an easement or profit à prendre made after the commencement of this Chapter, sections 34 to 37 —

(a) apply to any claim based on a relevant user period notwithstanding that it is alleged that an additional user period occurred before that commencement,

(b) do not apply to any claim based on a user period under the law applicable prior to the commencement of this Chapter and alleged to have commenced prior to such commencement where the action in which the claim is made is brought within 3 years of such commencement."

This is where I got confused about the applicability of the old rules relating to easements by prescription. From my understanding (and a quick look at law firm's explanatory memos on the the act) it seems that you have 3 years from the commencement of the Act to safeguard prescriptive easements based on a user period pre-Dec 2009. After that they have to be re-acquired under s35 and so you have to clock up the user period again from scratch - at least that's what the memo I read suggests. If anyone else has better grasp on when the old rules will continue to apply that'd be very helpful!

DeSourire

AH88 wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone has any recent EU sample answers from 2010 on-wards? I have recent answers in most other subjects if needed.

PM me your email address.

Fe1exams

Loulu wrote: »

Sorry for the delayed reply! No I wasn't referring to interruption of use, I got the bit about three years from s38 of the LCRA 2009 which provides the details of the transition period:

"38.— In relation to any claim to an easement or profit à prendre made after the commencement of this Chapter, sections 34 to 37 —

(a) apply to any claim based on a relevant user period notwithstanding that it is alleged that an additional user period occurred before that commencement,

(b) do not apply to any claim based on a user period under the law applicable prior to the commencement of this Chapter and alleged to have commenced prior to such commencement where the action in which the claim is made is brought within 3 years of such commencement."

This is where I got confused about the applicability of the old rules relating to easements by prescription. From my understanding (and a quick look at law firm's explanatory memos on the the act) it seems that you have 3 years from the commencement of the Act to safeguard prescriptive easements based on a user period pre-Dec 2009. After that they have to be re-acquired under s35 and so you have to clock up the user period again from scratch - at least that's what the memo I read suggests. If anyone else has better grasp on when the old rules will continue to apply that'd be very helpful!

Correct, you have till Dec 1st 2012 to register an old easement or else the clock re-starts on Dec 2nd 2012, and u wont get the prescription easement till 2021 (12yrs later).

There is a three year grace period to claim a previous easement under the 2009 act and 2011 act, see s38 Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011.

The english law reform commission described the prescription act as one of the worst drafted acts of the statute book... Professor Bland described the act as a spectacular failure!
Again this is simple stuff made unnecessarily complex!

There is a little bit of reg title act 1964/ lclra 2009/ prescription act 1832 and civil law act 2011/ involved here, but technically speaking on the 2nd of Dec later this year if u dont claim it the clock starts again from 2009 dec 1st.

This will prob be subject to affidavit stating the contrary one would imagine.

itsonlybla

tm48 wrote: »

Hi guys, could someone briefly give me the answer to this part of the question. While the report says that it is indirect discrimination, the only cases on indirect discrim I have are on Article 45 workers. As far as equal treatment is concerned EU nationals and spanish nationals are treated in a comparable manner?! Just getting all confused...would be great if someone one would clarify this! Thanks...

A lot of those principles might be cross-applicable no?

Anyway a case somewhat on point there is Case C-137/84 [1985], Ministere Public v. Robert Heinrich Maria Mutsch.

It might be indirect discrimination as a language requirement more easily satisfied by Spanish nationals- the application of the same rules to non-comparable situations?

itsonlybla

Well that ice is probably up to something iffy...

Brendan2011

Hi just wondering if anyone has any sample answers for the March 2012 sittings, I have 2012 solutions for Constitutional and Contract to swap.

Amre17

Tort law -

Could someone please tell me what the October 2011 question on negligence was please.. missing that paper for some reason..

Thanks