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

Tony_TwoLegs

Gomzu wrote: »

I’ve realised looking through my notes that I’ve not done Anton Piller at all! What’s the likelihood that it’ll come up again?

Edit: also nothing on Bauer injunctions!! 😳

I'd say v.unlikely it'll reappear two in a row. Then again.... if it's a new examiner (possible) then who knows!!
Ignore Bayer imho

Lawhead767

Tommybojangles wrote: »

From Memory
Causation problem question
Defamation Problem question
Products liability Problem Question
Damages Essay
Limitation periods Essay
Employers liability Problem Question
And not a Scooby doo of the other 2

Are you saying q1 was causation ? I said r v fletcher ??

sapphire309

Lawhead767 wrote: »

Are you saying q1 was causation ? I said r v fletcher ??

Q4 was a problem Q on causation alone! Q1 was Rylands I think

Supermax1988

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Well tort went well. Not!! Surely the probability of preparing 11/12 topics and only three of them coming up is ridiculously low? Gah

Disastrous stuff. That was trickiest defamation question I've ever seen.

And not a single land based tort question!

Supermax1988

Lawhead767 wrote: »

What came up can anyone tell me?

From what I can tell...

Q1: DOC for 3rd Parties PQ
Q2: Limitation of Actions Essay
Q3: Defective Products PQ
Q4: Causation PQ
Q5: Damages Essay
Q6: Defamation PQ
Q7: Employer's Liability PQ
Q8: Nervous Shock Essay

david_etc

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Disastrous stuff. That was trickiest defamation question I've ever seen.

And not a single land based tort question!

Unbelievable. No land torts at all. Ridiculous. Definitely failed that, could only answer 3 properly.

Question One was vicarious liability for children surely? It's not Rylands. Weird question considering you were only asked to advise in relation Mary's liability to Harry, which was one sentence at the end?

Gunslinger92

I said q1 was public nuisance oh my god

Had to make up answers for limitations and employers liability and the causation one was weird too. The defamation one was my only good answer

Lawhead767

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

I said q1 was public nuisance oh my god

Had to make up answers for limitations and employers liability and the causation one was weird too. The defamation one was my only good answer

I said rylands v fletcher and public nuisance aswell for q1

Supermax1988

david_etc wrote: »

Question One was vicarious liability for children surely?

Oh jesus I never thought of that. I said it it was DOC owed for the actions of third parties. In that she assumed responsibility for his actions like in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club. I could be way off though.

There wasn't a single handy question on that paper. I thought I knew Defective Products inside out but the last paragraph in that question threw me.

Oh well. Better get cramming for Equity.

Sam675

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Oh jesus I never thought of that. I said it it was DOC owed for the actions of third parties. In that she assumed responsibility for his actions like in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club. I could be way off though.

There wasn't a single handy question on that paper. I thought I knew Defective Products inside out but the last paragraph in that question threw me.

Oh well. Better get cramming for Equity.

I said the same for Q1!

david_etc

I assume for Q1 you guys didn't just focus on the car accident like the question specified? I had to do that and the employer's liability one because I was stuck. Hilarious stuff - me talking about Fletcher v Commissioner for works..

ally1234

I’m done! Last fe1 ever I hope, fingers crossed. Gosh that was tricky one today though, I left tort exam to last. Negligent care of children was all I really wrote about for question 1, Curley v Mannion etc. maybe I’m doomed after that and will be back in October! The damages essay on deterring others wasn’t great either I made up a load of waffle for that and I know nothing about floodgates in nervous shock, more waffle...

flyingdog

Does anyone know if beneficiaries and solicitors are allowed to act as the witness to the execution of a will?

yournerd

flyingdog wrote: »

Does anyone know if beneficiaries and solicitors are allowed to act as the witness to the execution of a will?

Solicitors are.

Tony_TwoLegs

flyingdog wrote: »

Does anyone know if beneficiaries and solicitors are allowed to act as the witness to the execution of a will?

Solicitors yes
Beneficiaries no (secret trusts excl)

flyingdog

yournerd wrote: »

Solicitors are.

Thanks

lsheehaneire

Just wondering in question 1 apart from liability for a children’s dangerous propensity did anyone refer to remoteness of damage .ie the foreseeability of the ball damaging the windscreen?

bluntspoon

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

I'd say v.unlikely it'll reappear two in a row. Then again.... if it's a new examiner (possible) then who knows!!
Ignore Bayer imho

I haven't heard anything about a new examiner?

lsheehaneire

I presume doc for children is failure to control/ supervise ? Does remoteness apply ?

Tony_TwoLegs

bluntspoon wrote: »

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

I'd say v.unlikely it'll reappear two in a row. Then again.... if it's a new examiner (possible) then who knows!!
Ignore Bayer imho

I haven't heard anything about a new examiner?

No. Nor have I. It was hypothetical is all. Ie anything's possible

ally1234

lsheehaneire wrote: »

I presume doc for children is failure to control/ supervise ? Does remoteness apply ?

Yep failure to control and act as a prudent and just parent etc.. i didn’t mention remoteness, (my brain is worn out at this stage) but if you did, no harm you covered all scenarios

Tommybojangles

does anyone by any chance have a list of what was on the property paper in oktober?

bluntspoon

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

No. Nor have I. It was hypothetical is all. Ie anything's possible

Ah, okay. Fingers crossed there's been no change. I'm banking on a nice, predictable paper!

lsheehaneire

Tort paper... tough ? Did most people manange to cover all 5 ?

Gunslinger92

lsheehaneire wrote: »

Tort paper... tough ? Did most people manange to cover all 5 ?

I answered 5 but two of them were genuinely pulled out of my arse, and I now realise I didn't answer q.1 very well. My defamation answer was quite good cause I'd lots of cases on internet defamation, and my q.4 on causation was ropey at best.
Any other recent paper and I'd have flown it. So frustrating.

david_etc

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

I answered 5 but two of them were genuinely pulled out of my arse, and I now realise I didn't answer q.1 very well. My defamation answer was quite good cause I'd lots of cases on internet defamation, and my q.4 on causation was ropey at best.
Any other recent paper and I'd have flown it. So frustrating.

Did you think she was liable for the website? I assumed not because it was just a link to it and there's the Canadian Supreme Court decision on that (couldn't remember the name of it in the exam of course...) but I don't think it's had judicial consideration here?

lsheehaneire

Totally! It just seemed like it was hard to get a good run at 5 questions.

Gunslinger92

david_etc wrote: »

Did you think she was liable for the website? I assumed not because it was just a link to it and there's the Canadian Supreme Court decision on that (couldn't remember the name of it in the exam of course...) but I don't think it's had judicial consideration here?

She's liable for the tweet but not the website for the reason you said. (IMO of course). I only mentioned the fact she linked to a news article briefly, I focussed on the tweet for the majority of my answer, talked about how it satisfies the requirements of defamation under the 09 act

lsheehaneire

Surely her defamatory tweet directed people to the website? Anyone refer to Jamel v Dow Jones here ?

david_etc

david_etc wrote: »

Did you think she was liable for the website? I assumed not because it was just a link to it and there's the Canadian Supreme Court decision on that (couldn't remember the name of it in the exam of course...) but I don't think it's had judicial consideration here?

lsheehaneire wrote: »

Surely her defamatory tweet directed people to the website? Anyone refer to Jamel v Dow Jones here ?

I think the point is that she's not a publisher of the content in the link. The Canadian Supreme said links are like footnotes in the a book - they just show there's content elsewhere