King's Inns Entrance Exams 2009

Vainglory

Soooo....

Anyone else's palms getting a bit sweaty at this stage?

Am trying to get a broad knowledge of as much as possible due to the changes and new compulsory questions but am severely lacking in detail so far!

What's everyone else's approach?

eagle_&_bear

hi Valingory,

I sat and passed the exams last august. What really came through in the exams and indeed in the first 2 weeks of the BL year is the big reliance on knowledge of heads of loss and damage so for Tort and Contract know you're damages and heads of loss extremely well.

As far as I am aware Prof. Hedley in UCC is still the examiner and his area is restitution so thats always a hint towards what the questions will look for. Also bare in mind the questions wont just ask you to explain the law, they will a little unfairly at this stage) ask you to advise a client in a very real scenario so get used to understanding and explaining the law but also being helpful in your understanding.

If you have any specific queries, drop a line on here and I'll help in any way I can. I know what you are going through!! but the exams (whilst they are tough) are a test of stamina and strength! so get your body used to 5hrs sleep a night and long highly focused days

you'll do fine but gear up now! and dont hesitate to ask any questions at all

FreudianSlippers

Yeah I'm getting pretty nervous now as it seems nothing can be left out in Contract and Tort... but I'm deciding what the focus should be on this year in the other 3.
It's tempting to focus on what they've put on the sample papers, but I know that can be dangerous!

eagle_&_bear

OisinT wrote: »

Yeah I'm getting pretty nervous now as it seems nothing can be left out in Contract and Tort... but I'm deciding what the focus should be on this year in the other 3.
It's tempting to focus on what they've put on the sample papers, but I know that can be dangerous!

It's very very dangerous to cherry-pick! especially moreso now that all papers have a compulsory question! August '08 saw the first compulsory question for contract and it was a bit of a hanging question when you compare it to what was sent out in the sample paper.

I do like the idea of compulsory questions because they will throw up 8 or 9 issues per question and is usually a good way to kick the brain into gear for the paper.

As for constitution paper: needless the say separation of powers (all 3 topics in full) needs to be learned verbatim. similarly religion/freedom of expression/ article 10 and 11 ECHR need to be learned as 1 topic, property (art 43 and 40.3), family, childrends rights and president's art 26 powers etc. The only real area that has not come up is referendum law - but as a caveat:it has been up on the list every year. Because constitution is SO big, try leave as little out as is possible.

As for Evidence: dont leave anything out!! they questions you will be given will seek an overall knowledge from powers of arrest, search, detention, 38.1 rights to trial evidence: character, opinion, children etc so you cant really leave anything out.

As for Criminal: Murder/Manslaughter (and the differences will come up), know difference between s4,1964 and s3,1990; all theft offences, all/U]rape and sexual offences and then all defences in full.... I cant stress enough how critical defences are. Alot of last years questions asked both sides of the coin. Advise the DPP on prosecuting x,y,z and advise if any defence is admissable in the scenario and the successability therein. so cherry picking is really dodgy

hate to say it but there's extremely little you can leave out!
I have some personal hand written notes which I used which I can scan up here if they would help in any way!!

I also dont want to burden you in a mountain of paper work but if they would help you are more than welcome to them

Tom Young

On Tort - The paper is more of an issue/Tort spotting challenge and as such makes students learn a lot, but by the time you've issue spotted, written it up, then it's time to move on.

Criminal the year I did it had mostly property offences, NOFAPA and Constitutionality issues on it. No Sexual Offences at all, so know as much as you can.

The poster above makes the point about stamina. It is a tough week, prepare for the physical challenge of it as well.

FreudianSlippers

eagle_&_bear wrote: »

It's very very dangerous to cherry-pick! especially moreso now that all papers have a compulsory question! August '08 saw the first compulsory question for contract and it was a bit of a hanging question when you compare it to what was sent out in the sample paper.

I do like the idea of compulsory questions because they will throw up 8 or 9 issues per question and is usually a good way to kick the brain into gear for the paper.

As for constitution paper: needless the say separation of powers (all 3 topics in full) needs to be learned verbatim. similarly religion/freedom of expression/ article 10 and 11 ECHR need to be learned as 1 topic, property (art 43 and 40.3), family, childrends rights and president's art 26 powers etc. The only real area that has not come up is referendum law - but as a caveat:it has been up on the list every year. Because constitution is SO big, try leave as little out as is possible.

As for Evidence: dont leave anything out!! they questions you will be given will seek an overall knowledge from powers of arrest, search, detention, 38.1 rights to trial evidence: character, opinion, children etc so you cant really leave anything out.

As for Criminal: Murder/Manslaughter (and the differences will come up), know difference between s4,1964 and s3,1990; all theft offences, all/U]rape and sexual offences and then all defences in full.... I cant stress enough how critical defences are. Alot of last years questions asked both sides of the coin. Advise the DPP on prosecuting x,y,z and advise if any defence is admissable in the scenario and the successability therein. so cherry picking is really dodgy

hate to say it but there's extremely little you can leave out!
I have some personal hand written notes which I used which I can scan up here if they would help in any way!!

I also dont want to burden you in a mountain of paper work but if they would help you are more than welcome to them

Thanks for the advice... the more i'm looking at the topics the more I see what you mean... everything really needs to be covered.
If you don't mind scanning up those notes, every bit helps... I'd greatly appreciate it!

whattodo?

Hi, im doing the exams too. Im just wondering if it matters what results we get in these enterance exams (i mean obviously we have to pass them to get in). Do future masters etc lok at these results or is it ok to just scrape by?
I am hoping that issue spotting will get me through in tort for the more niggly smaller torts.

Sorry to seem stupid but an above poster said to pay close attention to heads of loss and quantum of damages, i was just wondering if it owuld be enogh to simply say that someone would be entitled to exemplary damages, damages for loss of earning etc or to say that damages would probably be assessed by reference to the book of quantum wihtout specifying a specific amount. Would showing that you are aware of the types of damages awarded be enough to get by, or did you mean something different??

Thanks for any help!

Tom Young

whattodo? wrote: »

Hi, im doing the exams too. Im just wondering if it matters what results we get in these enterance exams (i mean obviously we have to pass them to get in). Do future masters etc lok at these results or is it ok to just scrape by?
I am hoping that issue spotting will get me through in tort for the more niggly smaller torts.

Sorry to seem stupid but an above poster said to pay close attention to heads of loss and quantum of damages, i was just wondering if it owuld be enogh to simply say that someone would be entitled to exemplary damages, damages for loss of earning etc or to say that damages would probably be assessed by reference to the book of quantum wihtout specifying a specific amount. Would showing that you are aware of the types of damages awarded be enough to get by, or did you mean something different??

Thanks for any help!

Question 1. No;
Statement 2. The above poster said that the first 2 weeks of the BL degree programme which you need to pass the entrance exam to get on to involves heads of loss, quantum and damages etc; and
Question 3. Knowing damages and so forth is important. I am fairly sure the poster meant something different.

My own view is that the exam for contract will more than likely look at some more technical aspects of law: Fundamental Breach, Undue Influence, Exclusions, Exemptions, Warranties, Formation etc. Damages is unlikely to feature alone. Unless the question in some way deals with Hadley and Baxendale and remoteness, this area crosses into tort of course.

Tort I've already commented on. Know Detinue, Conversion, Deceit, Malicious Falsehood, Passing off and Conspiracy. Economic Loss too is a nice and nasty one with enough vacilation to create a mind melter.

I'd suggest a careful reading of the questions and a plan before attempting to answer. Of course this is based on the misinterpretation of the above remark in relation to heads of damage etc.

Tom

whattodo?

eagle_&_bear wrote: »

hi Valingory,

I sat and passed the exams last august. What really came through in the exams and indeed in the first 2 weeks of the BL year is the big reliance on knowledge of heads of loss and damage so for Tort and Contract know you're damages and heads of loss extremely well.
l

i dont really think i did misinterpret the above poster as he appeared to be clearly referring to the exam as well so perhaps you should take your own advice re reading things carefully!

FreudianSlippers

I have a feeling that professional negligence and psychiatric damage are probably important too.

Tom Young

whattodo? wrote: »

i dont really think i did misinterpret the above poster as he appeared to be clearly referring to the exam as well so perhaps you should take your own advice re reading things carefully!

I take it at this stage you will have already looked at the sample/previous papers and will be able to validate same. The '08 contract paper while the advice might seek remedy in damages etc, is far from dealing with same exclusively in any of the questions.

FreudianSlippers

Tom Young wrote: »

I take it at this stage you will have already looked at the sample/previous papers and will be able to validate same. The '08 contract paper while the advice might seek remedy in damages etc, is far from dealing with same exclusively in any of the questions.

last years sample paper differed greatly from the actual paper. How closely are the others likely to stick to the sample paper topics?

whattodo?

well obviously the question wont relate solely to damages, in subjects such as contract and tort there is usually an overlap of several issues and then the question is generally to advise on a range of issues. That doesnt mean damages wont be relevant to some if not all of the questions. I was merely wondering as to the extent of knowledge on damages that would be considered satisfactory.

For tort, Oisin T maybe vicarious liabiity might come up as there was a supreme court decision on this at Christmas (O'Keefe v Hickey) and it is an area of the law tht isnt fully settled. I have heard around that it might be one of the smaller questions although obviously that is just a guess!

eagle_&_bear

sorry if my mention of damages caused any confusion but that is what our course tutors said to us on day1 when we did the foundation course (first 2 weeks of the degree programme). It was said that the damages element in contract and tort was what cost alot of people marks in the answers. It was said more of a ''you need to know this well'' and I had meant just to pass this on...

eagle_&_bear

OisinT wrote: »

last years sample paper differed greatly from the actual paper. How closely are the others likely to stick to the sample paper topics?

The examiner would have free range to ask anything but my thoughts on the sample paper is to give you an idea of the structure of the paper, the complexity of the questions and type of answers needed to complete the question.

I'd advise against cherry picking.

eagle_&_bear

whattodo? wrote: »

I was merely wondering as to the extent of knowledge on damages that would be considered satisfactory.

Know each of the heads of loss and the purpose of each type of loss. Do you have notes on loss/damage?

Vainglory

Thanks to everyone for their responses and advice so far.

The two new Bills haven't been commenced yet as far as I know and won't be by the time we sit the exam; am I right in saying then that we advise on the current law and just maybe throw in a few comments at the end of a problem question about any relevant changes the new Bills will enact?

As an aside I am absolutely freaked about Tort and Constitutional but feel ok for everything else, the Criminal course is doable in two days if you put your mind to it.

Tom Young

Constitutional: Proportionality, Unenumerated Rights (Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Association/Dissociation), Evidence/Unconstitutionally obtained (Trimbole/State DPP (Walsh) v Cash), ECHR, Property, Education, Religion etc. Generally, O'Dowd tends to write his questions on areas of interest to him or recent judicial decisions/News.

I'd suggest the Religion and Blasphemy might be something to look at as a topic. Not as a tort but as a right in either FOE, Religion etc. Might be a nice one to attempt. The other areas which the Supreme Court has been looking at was Journalistic Sources Edit: Keena v Mahon Tribunal (Narrow judgment), so in that judgment of last week you'll note Goodwin features, the 2003 ECHR Act features and so on. Would be something I'd be putting on an exam if it was me setting the paper. Privacy has also come up in the judgment of Dunne J in Edit: Herrity v APN which is very interesting in that it was a constitutional breach in relation to telephone tapping, 1983 and 1993 P&T Acts etc. This is also a topic I would work through, as the Kennedy & Arnold v Ireland case arises too on similar grounds.

Tort: Really do cover as much as you can. Know the tests, know the torts. I think that the examiner used to overload the questions with Torts, so once you could spot them, it was easy money marks. As it EDIT:

Used to be on Friday

, I'd plan to have the Tort syllabus fully done and very soon.

Tom

Vainglory

Thanks for the tips..

Would the papers have been set at least a month or two ago though?

Tom Young

Yep: But Keena is well overdue and Herrity would have been in time. Association/Dissociation - Striking and Meskill v CIE given the economic climate ;0) cough.

Taxi cases are also popular in re. property. I think Crossan and Dillon are the two main cases.

I give no warranties obviously!

Tom

FreudianSlippers

Tort is on Monday this year.

Tort
Criminal
Contract
Constitution
Evidence

(if i remember correctly off the top of my head)

Tom Young

Cool - When I did it it was:

Evidence - Monday;
Constitutional - Tuesday;
Company - Wednesday;
Criminal - Thursday; and
Tort - Friday.

**Obviously Company is now gone! **

FreudianSlippers

Tom Young wrote: »

Cool - When I did it it was:

Evidence - Monday;
Constitutional - Tuesday;
Company - Wednesday;
Criminal - Thursday; and
Tort - Friday.

**Obviously Company is now gone! **

Thank god! I think having Constitutional towards the end of the week is gonna be tough.

Vainglory

Definitely, I think that'll be the worst one.

Tort shouldn't be too bad, even though I'm terrified of it, because it's first and we won't be as tired.

Apparently Aldi do six red bull type drinks for three euro. Just sayin'.

FreudianSlippers

This is slightly off the topic (perhaps not) but I have heard through the grape-vine that the number of applicants for the entrance exam is drastically less this year than it has been in previous years. Anyone else hear this or have an idea of how many less people have applied to sit the exams this year?

Vainglory

It's not drastically less but it is less.
Part time students will outnumber full time on the degree by a long way, I reckon.

Quick criminal query if anyone can assist!
If I go into a pub with the intention of just using the bathroom but AFTER I enter form the intention of stealing some soap (ie I'm not a trespasser at time of entry), is that just theft, or could it be burglary?

bogs

all you people make me sick as (may i suggest) your the next fat cats living of the fat of the land in your rubbish gowns and stupid wigs and as a paye earner i strongly condemn your so called working way of life.

Vainglory

bogs wrote: »

all you people make me sick as (may i suggest) your the next fat cats living of the fat of the land in your rubbish gowns and stupid wigs and as a paye earner i strongly condemn your so called working way of life.

Made my day.

Tom Young

bogs wrote: »

all you people make me sick as (may i suggest) your the next fat cats living of the fat of the land in your rubbish gowns and stupid wigs and as a paye earner i strongly condemn your so called working way of life.

Sorry on long vacation at the moment - down in Cap D'Antibes drinking red wine and consuming artery clogging foie gras. Please contact my secretary - who is currently having my wig reworked.

FreudianSlippers

Tom Young wrote: »

Sorry on long vacation at the moment - down in Cap D'Antibes drinking red wine and consuming artery clogging foie gras. Please contact my secretary - who is currently having my wig reworked.

I hear that proper holiday booking and foie gras appreciation will be a mandatory question on all exams this year. lol


Edit: just after I wrote that I went "awh... don't I wish" 8 days

FreudianSlippers

Vainglory wrote: »

It's not drastically less but it is less.
Part time students will outnumber full time on the degree by a long way, I reckon.

Ah. I just heard through someone who heard through someone :rolleyes: that it may be as low as 175 people taking the exam this year. Of course I took it with a grain of salt, but was just wondering if anyone else had heard that too?

thanks

Tom Young

OisinT wrote: »

I hear that proper holiday booking and foie gras appreciation will be a mandatory question on all exams this year. lol


Edit: just after I wrote that I went "awh... don't I wish" 8 days

Don't panic, that is the key to these exams. The week, is an endurance test, there's no doubting that. You will be tired after it.

Don't overload on Redbulls, be clear of mind and spirit and give it a lash.

The degree year at the Inns is great fun.

Tom

McCrack

bogs wrote: »

all you people make me sick as (may i suggest) your the next fat cats living of the fat of the land in your rubbish gowns and stupid wigs and as a paye earner i strongly condemn your so called working way of life.

Haha post of the day maybe?

Kudos green eye. If ya can't beat it knock it. I'll throw you a few pence in your cup.

_JOE_

Tom Young wrote: »

Yep: But Keena is well overdue and Herrity would have been in time. Association/Dissociation - Striking and Meskill v CIE given the economic climate ;0) cough.

Taxi cases are also popular in re. property. I think Crossan and Dillon are the two main cases.

I give no warranties obviously!

Tom

I was looking for these cases today and couldn't find any citation I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction.
Is the dillon case you mention Dillane v Ireland 1980?

Tom Young

Yeah - Sorry about this, I got the names complete wrong.

Crossan was a JR against the King's Inns that I had to look at recently and Dillon is about a stay on Criminal Proceedings.

Apologies!

Taxi cases: Gorman v Minister for Environment (No 2.) [2001] 2 IR 414 and Hempenstall v Minister for the Environment [1994] 2 IR 20.

The other newer property case: Clinton v An Bord Pleanala [2007] IESC 19 (Unrep) 2 May 2007 and in re. Art 26 of the Planning and DEV Bill [2000] 2 IR 321.

The above only really cover off state licences. Also go back and look at other cases e.g., Gorman v ESB, Maher, Pigs Marketing Board, O'Callaghan, Dreher, Lawlor, Gilligan and Clinton in the High Court.

Milk & Honey

Is there any point in doing these exams at all if there is no puppilage arranged? Two potential masters I spoke to recently have taken themselves off the list because of the requirement to pay 3k to the bar council if they take on a devil.

FreudianSlippers

You'll find a master. The Inns are pretty good about helping from what I hear. I had a really really hard time finding one but did eventually. I say take the exams and try to pass them next week and worry about a Master after!

Vainglory

My head is exploding.

Tom Young

Stick with it. Try 20 / 30 min sessions with a 3 / 5 min break in between. Usually stops the mind melting.

Tom

Vainglory

Evidence is driving me bonkers.

I was looking at a case today and found three different interpretations of what happened in it, between John Healy's notes, the Independent manual, and the Nutshell. Drove me absolutely demented so had to dig out the case. Turns out John Healy was right but could have done without the headmelt!

Tom Young

Oh yeah? What was it? The shield?

Vainglory

That's another thing I've found inconsistencies on between sources, but it was actually Cullen v Clarke for hearsay.

Tom Young

Yep - It's amazing how many differing interpretations there are. Healy gets it down right.

Vainglory

Add the peculiar knowledge principle to the list.
I will have no hair left by the end of this.
Wonder why it seems to happen much more often with Evidence?

Tom Young

Yep - If you say privilege next then we had similar issues. I found mapping out the cases useful. Short summary of each tracking the origins and principles, then the go in and you can gage the differences. This was very much the case with Hudson and McGrail, Privilege (which never actually goes away), Hearsay (also never goes away) and Reverse Onus etc.

Ms. Rumpole

Hi all,

Just wondering if anyone else has had a gander at the compulsory question on the contract sample paper?

Im thinking its to do with exclusion clauses, agency (responsibility of Eamonn to Fifi and Grainne) and remoteness of damage (re the loss suffered by Grainne & Ian).... am i on the right track or completely off here??? Palms defo getting sweaty now..... am definitely worried have bitten off more than can chew with this endeavour...
In answer to the 'paye employee' post re 'us future fat cats'; I think if one manages to make it through these exams etc, the foie gras and holidays are well due...

Vainglory

I saw exclusion clauses, remoteness of damage (re Ian), damages generally, misrepresentation, implied terms, breach of terms.

Ms. Rumpole

Thanks vainglory.

Best of luck next week.

kimess

Hi guys, really freaking out about the constitutional law paper. For some reason I just can't seem to be able to get my head around any of it!!! Does anyone know how likely it is that seperation of powers will come up in the compulsory question 1? Just, since it's such a MASSIVE topic i'd rather leave it out if at all possible. If it's not in Q1 it'll surely come up in the other 4 questions, but that'd still leave me a choice of 3 questions at worst! What do you think?

Tom Young

I comment on Constitutional above. Try not to leave anything out.

FreudianSlippers

I wouldn't leave it out, but if I were to guess on what is going to be the focus, I think it'll be Leg/Exec and Leg/Judicial... at least from past papers and the sample.