FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

b.anna

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Was it you that told me to do art.34? You're a legend

Yeah no institutions was weird, the competition law question was weird. I didn't find it the worst though

I have a feeling ill be doing this exam again in October . Had 3 ok questions. Mixed up one case note and 5th questions was a mess.

purple24

b.anna wrote: »

I have a feeling ill be doing this exam again in October . Had 3 ok questions. Mixed up one case note and 5th questions was a mess.

I got 53 in October with 4 qs - 1 good, 1 okay and 2 dodgy. don't lose hope

Leraf

b.anna wrote: »

I have a feeling ill be doing this exam again in October . Had 3 ok questions. Mixed up one case note and 5th questions was a mess.

Probably be doing it with u !

Robbo

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

Well they do have to give some reason but the remit varies on the court jurisdiction e.g. District Courts vs Supreme.
See the Judge Ballagh [2002] case. I forget the Plaintiff's name

O’Mahony v. Ballagh [2002] 2 IR 410

Whilst recognising that the District Court can often be hectic, it was found that the trial judge should at least indicate which arguments he's accepting or rejecting so that the accused has something to form the basis of an appeal.

purple24

Robbo wrote: »

O’Mahony v. Ballagh [2002] 2 IR 410

Whilst recognising that the District Court can often be hectic, it was found that the trial judge should at least indicate which arguments he's accepting or rejecting so that the accused has something to form the basis of an appeal.

Smith v Ni Chonduin (2007) is also on point

castle123

EU LAW

Anyone else left clueless by the Case Notes Q?

I studied ten of most recent and commonly occurring ones and I couldn’t answer a single one on the paper. Shafted. If it’s a repeat for me I’m not even going to bother studying for that q. Waste of time

ArthurDayne

I have to say I really enjoyed listening to the people chatting and singing in the kitchen while trying to focus on my third consecutive morning of sitting FE1s. Felt the exam went OK but really it's not good enough. A quiet exam hall is the least one can ask given all the time, energy and cash we are throwing at these.

yournerd

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I have to say I really enjoyed listening to the people chatting and singing in the kitchen while trying to focus on my third consecutive morning of sitting FE1s. Felt the exam went OK but really it's not good enough. A quiet exam hall is the least one can ask given all the time, energy and cash we are throwing at these.

Total disgrace I think!!

Gunslinger92

castle123 wrote: »

EU LAW

Anyone else left clueless by the Case Notes Q?

I studied ten of most recent and commonly occurring ones and I couldn’t answer a single one on the paper. Shafted. If it’s a repeat for me I’m not even going to bother studying for that q. Waste of time

Yeah that selection of cases was bonkers. I only prepared about 5 and lucky I wasn't banking on that question!

b.anna

castle123 wrote: »

EU LAW

Anyone else left clueless by the Case Notes Q?

I studied ten of most recent and commonly occurring ones and I couldn’t answer a single one on the paper. Shafted. If it’s a repeat for me I’m not even going to bother studying for that q. Waste of time

They weren't nice at all. Was hoping for something handy considering institutions didn't even make an appearance .

XxMCRxBabyxX

castle123 wrote: »

EU LAW

Anyone else left clueless by the Case Notes Q?

I studied ten of most recent and commonly occurring ones and I couldn’t answer a single one on the paper. Shafted. If it’s a repeat for me I’m not even going to bother studying for that q. Waste of time

I had written out all 46 cases that had come up since March '11 and only 5 of the ones of the paper had come up before. Only one that I'd actually studied! None of the reliables!

sapphire309

Please can anyone tell me what happened in Beades v Ireland (2016)?

yournerd

Does anyone know has article 42a been used in a case yet?

EJ15

Best of luck to those sitting constitutional tomorrow.
Can anyone let me know when approx the exam results come out?

Robbo

sapphire309 wrote: »

Please can anyone tell me what happened in Beades v Ireland (2016)?

The applicant sought to prevent Kelly J being made President of the High Court for non-compliance with the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995.

Proceedings were struck out as vexatious. The Cabinet has the sole power to appoint judges and this was a non-justiciable controversy.

Not sure what use it is in a exam though.

purple24

EJ15 wrote: »

Best of luck to those sitting constitutional tomorrow.
Can anyone let me know when approx the exam results come out?

They're basically always six fridays after the second week of fe1s - so the Friday of the May bank holiday - 4th May probably

Gunslinger92

Fe1hun18 wrote: »

Can anyone give me a run through of the EU questions that appeared today?

General principles of eu law and how they're used to protect individuals by the court of justice and to ensure that the eu institutions and the member states act in accordance with law

Problem on art. 34

Problem on direct effect

Essay on judicial review, has the plaumann test continued to make it "literally impossible" for non privileged applicants to institute proceedings against an act of the eu

Problem on citizenship/workers

Problem on arts 30 and 110

Case note Q

Last question was a part A and a part B you answered one. A was on whether the law is now sufficiently developed in relation to sex equality in employment such that the institutions can now focus on other forms of discrimination

B was about competition (art.102) the extent to which a dominant undertaking can take steps to protect its own commercial position on the market

A strange paper alright..

BASHBAG

Can someone tell me under what chapter I can find fair procedures? Not 38.1. Did notes out last week for them and I'm gone blank and can't find the fecking notes.

RyanMcG123

BASHBAG wrote: »

Can someone tell me under what chapter I can find fair procedures? Not 38.1. Did notes out last week for them and I'm gone blank and can't find the fecking notes.

It's under personal right and could be constitutional justice or natural justice

BASHBAG

RyanMcG123 wrote: »

It's under personal right and could be constitutional justice or natural justice

Thanks

Robbie25808

Constitutional Law:

Anybody able to give me a brief synopsis or the ruling in Omar v Governor of Cloverhill Prison?

I am quite confused about the case.

ak4321

Can anyone clarify why Bolger wasn’t allowed to rely on Damache while O’Brien, Kavanagh and Cunningham were? All were at appeal stage. Was it that the latter 3 couldn’t have been raised at trial as Damache was only handed down while they were at appeal stage? This is the only logical conclusion I can come to!

Teamhrach

ak4321 wrote: »

Can anyone clarify why Bolger wasn’t allowed to rely on Damache while O’Brien, Kavanagh and Cunningham were? All were at appeal stage. Was it that the latter 3 couldn’t have been raised at trial as Damache was only handed down while they were at appeal stage? This is the only logical conclusion I can come to!

I'm not studying this topic but could it be because Bolger didn't raise the issue at his original trial? Possible issue of retrospectivity?

coolusername95

Teamhrach wrote: »

I'm not studying this topic but could it be because Bolger didn't raise the issue at his original trial? Possible issue of retrospectivity?

Yeah Bolger didn’t raise it at trail originally as far as I know! Didn’t apply the Cronin expection.

ak4321

coolusername95 wrote: »

Yeah Bolger didn’t raise it at trail originally as far as I know! Didn’t apply the Cronin expection.

So maybe that’s why court allowed O’Brien / Cunningham / Kavanagh to raise on appeal? It would have been impossible for them to raise on trial as Damache wasn’t handed down at that stage?

yournerd

Ok im gonna leave out of due course of law - is that the worst idea ever?

coolusername95

ak4321 wrote: »

So maybe that’s why court allowed O’Brien / Cunningham / Kavanagh to raise on appeal? It would have been impossible for them to raise on trial as Damache wasn’t handed down at that stage?

It's not about Damache being handed down at that stage, Damache need not have been in their contemplation. It's the fact that they raised an issue with S29... they may have argued this anyway as part of their case, as in one of their many defences... it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Damache.

Mayo91

yournerd wrote: »

Ok im gonna leave out of due course of law - is that the worst idea ever?

Trial in due course is pretty big, you may want to look at maybe entitlement to advisor and evidence (obtained and preservation). 2 cases from each area should help.

For advisor theres just O Brien 2005, Gormley 2010, Gormley & White and then Barry 2016, Doyle 2017.

Then Uncost obtained evidence is DPP v JC ( in conjunction with Unconstionality e.g. Damanche)

and then a case or two from Duty to seek out and preserve.

Thats a last minute guide if you're looking at it.

SM1803

yournerd wrote: »

Ok im gonna leave out of due course of law - is that the worst idea ever?

i would maybe do right to a solicitor because of the DPP v Barry Doyle case!

yournerd

SM1803 wrote: »

i would maybe do right to a solicitor because of the DPP v Barry Doyle case!

Oh god so it is a terrible idea..
Thank you @Mayo91! Wanna do my exam too?