FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

rick flair

Some stalwarts did not come up, PS i thought question 8 was about equality and not family law.


PS can some one tell me was the issue in Arthurs licence questions about his legitimate expectation ? and the actual wording of the Act ?

brian__foley

sunnyside wrote: »

I'd be delighted if someone could explain this. If the case couldn't be tried in the District court isn't that it, end of story but a paragraph would explain that. I think they might have wanted us to mention that constitutional issues can't be dealt with in the District court but I didn't think of that until after leaving the exam hall.

Did creating a criminal offence have anything to do with it? A judicial power issue, I'm thinking not because it was a court that would be trying the offence anyway not a tribunal but identifying the issues really was difficult.

Haven't looked in detail, but I would think (a) minor v non-minor (b) the fact that the DC can't really do anything about it as it would be tantamount to saying the act is unconstitutional and (c) the fact that the facts suggest a "no fault scenario" and the offence appears strict/absolute liability - so something on that. There may be something else, but I've just seen it for about 4 seconds.

Scruffy1

I found today's paper to be pretty tough. Issue spotting was the first hurdle and then the random essay q's were quite off-putting- i dont know about everyone else but i was expecting the president and the attorney general was a bit of a surprise.
Im not really sure how i did, i have a feeling i may have failed but im unsure. Here's what i did:

Question 1: i ATTEMPTED this question as a last resort. I wrote 2 pages on the AG, not really answering the specific question but i had a few cases such as McLoughlin, Father Patrick Ryan and Incorporated Law Society, made up the rest with the aid of the constittution itself! Did very badly here id say.

Question 3: i approached this from the right to have justice adminstered in public angle and particularly, the right to use a pseudo name. I had cases such as Re R, Irish Press v Ingersoll, Roe v Irish Blood Transfusion Board, Ansbacher. I then talked a bit on pre-trial publicity and used the D case and X case. I advised Bugle Press that they would be successful in arguing that justice must be always administered in public and that this would outwin Harry's argument of a good name.
I didn't mention freedom of expression as Bugle Press hadn't actually written anything defamitory or controversial so i didnt think this was relevant but now im wondering was it??

Q 5: i attempted this Q as best i could. I knew alot about fair procedure but wasnt sure how to apply it to right to a good name?? I used cases such as McDonald, Garvey, Mooney, Flanagan v UCD, Wellwoman Centre and Bugle v Tara Mines. I stuck sentences in here and there about the fact that one has the right to a good name and that the fair procedure rights developed from this... etc. But my argument was pretty poor!

Q6: I think i scored well here. I did it in 2 separate issues:
separation of powers -legislature
property - complulsory purchase order.
I had all the cases for both these issues and im confident i wrote a good answer.

Q7: i mentioned ALOT of possible issues here:
separation of powers- executive- must be a pending action (Arthur hadnt applied to court so wasnt pending Divito etc)
Equality (Arthur wasnt treated the same as other publicans who had previously bought a llicence)
Right to earn a livlihood (Arthur's right to earn a livlihood was affected because he'd have to close at 11pm and his competittors at 5am)
Ultimately i argued that Arthur would be successful on the grounds of his right to earn a livlihood and maybe equality.
I dont know though, was i completely off the mark here?!!

It so hard to know how i got on. Id really appreciate any feedback on how i did. I have a distinct feeling i may have failed but that could be just the pessimism talking. I feel i deserved to pass as i put all the work in (i studied the entire course! the only topic i left out was the family) but i think the paper was just a bit dodgey. Would love to know everyone's views....

brian__foley

rick flair wrote: »

Some stalwarts did not come up, PS i thought question 8 was about equality and not family law.


PS can some one tell me was the issue in Arthurs licence questions about his legitimate expectation ? and the actual wording of the Act ?

Looks like (as noted above by Sunnyside) an "interference with judicial power" kinda question. And involves questions about equal treatment and the right to earn a livlihood - like, his pub is treated differently to other pubs etc and the rationality of such. Just a first impression.

No expectation can expect to survive a change in the law, so LE wouldn't be it.

edit: kudos on the user-name btw

brian__foley

Scruffy1 wrote: »

I found today's paper to be pretty tough. Issue spotting was the first hurdle and then the random essay q's were quite off-putting- i dont know about everyone else but i was expecting the president and the attorney general was a bit of a surprise.
Im not really sure how i did, i have a feeling i may have failed but im unsure. Here's what i did:

Question 1: i ATTEMPTED this question as a last resort. I wrote 2 pages on the AG, not really answering the specific question but i had a few cases such as McLoughlin, Father Patrick Ryan and Incorporated Law Society, made up the rest with the aid of the constittution itself! Did very badly here id say.

Question 3: i approached this from the right to have justice adminstered in public angle and particularly, the right to use a pseudo name. I had cases such as Re R, Irish Press v Ingersoll, Roe v Irish Blood Transfusion Board, Ansbacher. I then talked a bit on pre-trial publicity and used the D case and X case. I advised Bugle Press that they would be successful in arguing that justice must be always administered in public and that this would outwin Harry's argument of a good name.
I didn't mention freedom of expression as Bugle Press hadn't actually written anything defamitory or controversial so i didnt think this was relevant but now im wondering was it??

Q 5: i attempted this Q as best i could. I knew alot about fair procedure but wasnt sure how to apply it to right to a good name?? I used cases such as McDonald, Garvey, Mooney, Flanagan v UCD, Wellwoman Centre and Bugle v Tara Mines. I stuck sentences in here and there about the fact that one has the right to a good name and that the fair procedure rights developed from this... etc. But my argument was pretty poor!

Q6: I think i scored well here. I did it in 2 separate issues:
separation of powers -legislature
property - complulsory purchase order.
I had all the cases for both these issues and im confident i wrote a good answer.

Q7: i mentioned ALOT of possible issues here:
separation of powers- executive- must be a pending action (Arthur hadnt applied to court so wasnt pending Divito etc)
Equality (Arthur wasnt treated the same as other publicans who had previously bought a llicence)
Right to earn a livlihood (Arthur's right to earn a livlihood was affected because he'd have to close at 11pm and his competittors at 5am)
Ultimately i argued that Arthur would be successful on the grounds of his right to earn a livlihood and maybe equality.
I dont know though, was i completely off the mark here?!!

It so hard to know how i got on. Id really appreciate any feedback on how i did. I have a distinct feeling i may have failed but that could be just the pessimism talking. I feel i deserved to pass as i put all the work in (i studied the entire course! the only topic i left out was the family) but i think the paper was just a bit dodgey. Would love to know everyone's views....

sounds good to me...esp re q7

maureen123

what did people think of the company exam????

sunnyside

brian__foley wrote: »

(c) the fact that the facts suggest a "no fault scenario" and the offence appears strict/absolute liability - so something on that. There may be something else, but I've just seen it for about 4 seconds.

I mentioned the strict liability thing and the defence of an honest mistake or something to that effect but as far as I know that stuff isn't on the constitutional course (Brian may correct me there). It felt like a criminal law qusetion so I felt "I'm writing the wrong things here"

Scruffy1 wrote: »

It so hard to know how i got on. Id really appreciate any feedback on how i did. I have a distinct feeling i may have failed but that could be just the pessimism talking. I feel i deserved to pass as i put all the work in (i studied the entire course! the only topic i left out was the family) but i think the paper was just a bit dodgey. Would love to know everyone's views....

That's exactly how I explained it earlier. How did this paper compare with other years? If everyone found it difficult wouldn't that bring the standard down a bit? It was also my very first law exam ever, what a one to start on!

I mentioned equality and right to earn a livliehood in 2 questions but it was literally a sentence at the end of my answer. No cases to back it up or anything. Would just mentioning it help?

I had no case law for the District court question and the flawed Article 26 question didn't have case law in the manual as far as I remember. I wanted to use case law so I very briefly mentioned a few Article 26 reference cases. I don't think they had anything to do with it though so I didn't bother to "write everything I know". I mentioned the Criminal Justice Act 2009 too just because it's recent.

For the pub licence question I knew the DeVito case so explained that well, explained why it was distinguished from the Sinn Fein Funds case and said that becuse Arthurs case was so similar to DeVito he probably wouldn't succeed. Then a line about his right to earn a livliehood and equality with other pub owners. Is that enough to pass anyone? DeVito is the right case so that would help but am I closer to 40% than 50%?


And a big thank you to Brian for coming here on a Friday afternoon and answering our questions.

brian__foley

sunnyside wrote: »

and the flawed Article 26 question didn't have case law in the manual as far as I remember. I wanted to use case law so I very briefly mentioned a few Article 26 reference cases. I don't think they had anything to do with it though so I didn't bother to "write everything I know". I mentioned the Criminal Justice Act 2009 too just because it's recent.

Well, i wouldn't worry. the answer to that question isn't "in" a case. Its a question about whether process is worthwhile which raises issues like (a) is the review useful in the absence of a real plaintiff, if the whole of Cahill v Sutton is that cases lack reality with concrete plaintiffs (b) whether the fact that the law can never be challenged again is a good idea (c) whether the time limit set in the constitution is too short to properly prepare (d) can issues be decided in the absence of evidence - i.e. its not clear if evidence can be adduced etc. Stuff like that.

sunnyside

brian__foley wrote: »

Well, i wouldn't worry. the answer to that question isn't "in" a case. Its a question about whether process is worthwhile which raises issues like (a) is the review useful in the absence of a real plaintiff, if the whole of Cahill v Sutton is that cases lack reality with concrete plaintiffs (b) whether the fact that the law can never be challenged again is a good idea (c) whether the time limit set in the constitution is too short to properly prepare (d) can issues be decided in the absence of evidence - i.e. its not clear if evidence can be adduced etc. Stuff like that.

I had (b) and (c) and the single judjment rule, the relevant Aticle subsection numbers and I mentioned about the Chief justice being in both the Council of state and the Supreme court. I know I had the general idea but the lack of relevant case law and never having done a law exam before I don't know what's required to get 50%. I had 3 questions which I think were good and the other too were very average but still about the right issues I think. I really don't want to do this again.

And nothing about constitutional interpretation which I would have loved and no Europe questions either which suited me fine because I left that out.

rick flair

Hi All
Has anyone got a link to anything which might resemble the above. I drafted my own on an excel sheet but wondering if someone has one of those Griffith or Independent Colleges versions.


PS In hindsight because the Constituional exam was pretty tough hopefully the marking will be inversely proportionate.

Dandelion6

PC021 wrote: »

Its poor form that they have the exams on without any breaks in between

I was dreading this too as I did Tort, Company and Constitutional last week... I was an utterly exhausted wreck by Friday afternoon but at this point it's nice to have gotten them over with so quickly (as opposed to last April where they were spread out over a couple weeks!). Also, since I have to take my study leave out of my holidays it was a lot less awkward this way.

Although maybe I should reserve judgment till my results come back

Dandelion6

lollipop wrote: »

My dodgy 5th question this morning was the director/shadow director/de facto director question... I started by describing the differences between the three types and then, having seen the word "duties" in the first line went off talking about director's duties -to whom they are owed, fettering of discretion, abuse of power etc. Was this all completely irrelevant??

I just did the difference between the three types of directors and pointed out the provisions in statute/case law that make them all liable for breaches of company law eg. Section 2 of the 1963 Act defining a director as anyone who acts like a director, Lynrowan, 1990 Act putting shadow director on a statutory footing etc.. no idea if he was looking for more than that ...

Paul1979

lougem wrote: »

Yep I was surprised that causation in negligence was only touched on in one question that was mainly about Rylands v Fletcher. Apart from that there was nothing else about negligence unless you count professional negligence. I would have expected either a general negligence problem or an essay Q on causation.

are u talking about the question regarding the car crash and the possible causes?

in my view that was a question regarding the multiple causation test set out in cases such a Bonnington/Essex area authority/mc gee, and whether or not causation can be inferred when there is a myriad of possible causes (such as a water leak, speed, dog, and marys own contributory negligence)...i could be wrong though

fe1dublin

I discussed animal negligence about the dog running in front of the car. I also discussed the fact that the council should not have left their van (or whatever it was) when they had been told not to.

Paul1979

but surely the whole point of the q was to discuss causation in light of various different causes, thus the single cause "but for test" doesnt apply rather the multiple cause test, i thought the q was similiar to oct 06 the q regarding "Aisling Airlines" where a number of contributory factors resulted in damage to pilot

rylands v fletcher doesnt apply because that is the escaping of something due to the non natural use of land (none of the events resulted from a non natural use of land)

littlemac1980

Paul1979 wrote: »

but surely the whole point of the q was to discuss causation in light of various different causes, thus the single cause "but for test" doesnt apply rather the multiple cause test, i thought the q was similiar to oct 06 the q regarding "Aisling Airlines" where a number of contributory factors resulted in damage to pilot

rylands v fletcher doesnt apply because that is the escaping of something due to the non natural use of land (none of the events resulted from a non natural use of land)

Yeah I agree with you on that one paul, don't think RvF came into it at all. I took the multiple causes approach, factual versus legal, Novus act Inter, with a brief bit on contributory liability.

32minutes

i dont think it was a problem re animal liability either because primary cause was still with the landowner and the water, it made sense as negligence question with 2 novus actus intervenus (possibly 3 if you count the old woman slowing down).

it was kind of similar to connolly v south of ireland asphalt, also concerned ice freezing on a road and novus

Sineadm

hi i am re-sitting the prelim exam in 2010 i failed the previous paoer in general knowledge would anybody have any advice in relation to the general knowledge paper?

panda142

Sineadm wrote: »

hi i am re-sitting the prelim exam in 2010 i failed the previous paoer in general knowledge would anybody have any advice in relation to the general knowledge paper?

Havent done it and don't know much about it but do you have the booklet of past papers??

fe1dublin

I do see that point, but I have spoken with many people who think it was a RvF question, with subsiduary issues such as animal negligence.

I believe it was RvF as the waterpipe that burst, led the water to go on to the road thus 'escaping' from the land. In relation to the non-natural use of the land, I discussed the case of Richards v.Lothian were it was held that it was a natural use of the land as the water that escaped was used for domestic purposes. This can be seen in contrast to 'non' natural uses such as the case Mason v. Levy Auto Parts. Therefore, I said how in this case, althought it appeared to be RvF, it cannot be seen as a non natural use, as a water pipe for a house is for domestic purposes. However, I obviously still found the home owner negligent for not dealing with the matter with more urgency.
I also referred to the dog issue as animal negligence.

I dont know, I think it greatly depends on interpretation.

Jev/N

Sineadm wrote: »

hi i am re-sitting the prelim exam in 2010 i failed the previous paoer in general knowledge would anybody have any advice in relation to the general knowledge paper?

I doubt anyone here has done it TBH?

And please don't take this the wrong way but if you can't pass that exam on the first try, maybe the FE-1s mightn't be for you

Actually just used the search function and found this:

servicecharge wrote: »

I did this years ago as a short cut to the FE-1s. It's relatively easy and I would equate most of it to the leaving cert. The general knowledge section is very easy, just know loads of public figures (eg the chief justice, various ministers etc), capital cities. Make sure you have been reading the Irish times in the lead up.

I think everyone passed easily enough.

vote4pedro

Sineadm wrote: »

hi i am re-sitting the prelim exam in 2010 i failed the previous paoer in general knowledge would anybody have any advice in relation to the general knowledge paper?

Without trying to sound sh itty you might wanna have a look at the Fe1 past papers, if you're sitting the prelim exam just as a way of eventually taking the Fe1s. They're seriously, seriously hard exams and would be putting yourself at great financial cost/an awful lot of work for something even the best highest scoring law grads from college are reduced to quivering wrecks over. Maybe there were other reasons why you failed the prelim exam in which case fair enough, but from what I've heard the jump from the prelim exam to the FE1s is absolutely, hugely enormous, so maybe its worth taking a look at the FE1 papers and have a think if you'd really be able to pass 8 of them in quick succession.

rick flair

Guys

Rylands was of no substance for this question , it was the red herring the question involved

Remoteness of damage
Contributory Negligence
Concurrent/Multiple Wrongdoers
Novus Actus
Road Traffic Act and the Duty & Standard of care
The drivers problem here was would she get over the line on the balance of probability ? Probably not

R V F may be pleaded but you would never bring that home, all of it on Bill as the remoteness principle kicks in.

excuse the spelling.bit pisshhhtttt

fe1dublin

So if said RvF, big fat fail for that question?

32minutes

fe1dublin wrote: »

So if said RvF, big fat fail for that question?

either way the examiner knew exactly what they were doing and how the question was possiblly open to multiple different causes of action

im sure they were looking for a focus on one (hopefully causation and novus for me) but i dont think it would have done any harm to acknowledge any of the other areas either, especially if you make convincing arguements for them

rick flair

I think raising all of the possible areas is the best thing to do for such a question. Perhaps the focus was on identifying the issues and validating why they would be relevant.

Anyway, best of luck, anyone doing Equity tomorrow ?? Any ideas or tips ?

rick flair

Does anyone have this to hand ??? The griffith or Independent would suffice.
Mega cramming this afternoon

lollipop

I ruled out Rylands and Fletcher on the basis that it's supposed to relate only to a single escape of the dangerous item? This was continuous in nature as he had left the leak running for a period of time...

32minutes

rick flair wrote: »

Does anyone have this to hand ??? The griffith or Independent would suffice.
Mega cramming this afternoon

goes up to end of 2008, if the link doesnt work type
http://groups.google.com/group/fe-1-study-group/files
as a url

littlemac1980

32minutes wrote: »

either way the examiner knew exactly what they were doing and how the question was possiblly open to multiple different causes of action

im sure they were looking for a focus on one (hopefully causation and novus for me) but i dont think it would have done any harm to acknowledge any of the other areas either, especially if you make convincing arguements for them

Pretty sure, it doesn't matter what route you took toward a breach of duty, ie. basic negligence, RvF, animal negligence, Road Traffic acts, Breach of Stat duty.

The question specifically asked for a discussion of Causation so no matter how you attributed fault among the various parties I'm of the opinion the real question was how the courts approach factual and legal causation within the multiple causes. i.e. Bonnington, McGhee, NAI's, Contrib Liab.
So as long as following the discussion of any of the above faults of the actors you discussed the approach to the multiple causes you should be fine.