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

lawdedaw

hi everyone,

Would any kind soul be willing to send me any sample answers they may have for the 2017/2018 Constitutional Papers? More than happy to share grids/ papers/ notes in return

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Am I correct in my understanding that the Registry of Deeds was the office where coveyances and deeds in relation to property were registered and serialised in order to give priority and that the Land Registry was where land would become registered as opposed to the deeds? The latter giving rise to a folio which gives the details of charges and burdens etc. with the exception of S72 burdens and that? Both now have been absorbed and the new law is that any new transaction of land needs to result in the land being registered?


Also, is it so that the Registry of Deed's isn't defunct, they just deal with deeds and still serialise them. So if I buy a house, I send the deed of conveyance to the Registry of deeds, and how does the folio get changed? Is that enough to do it or is it another process?

Yeah you are correct. Registry of Deeds - Unregistered land, you go there to register deeds in relation to the land e.g. a mortgage. Land Registry = Registered land, all registered land has a folio which tells you all the interests/burdens.

Registry of Deeds isn't defunct as you can still register deeds for unregistered land.

However, if you bought a house on unregistered land I think you would have to register it in the Land Registry as there is compulsory registration in place now.

As to the actual process of how to register your land and get a folio, I don't know, but I don't think we need to know that for the purposes of FE1s, though I assume it involves going into the PRA with all your deeds etc and asking them to register it.

Sidenote, though I haven't seen this is any manual so I'm not sure, I went into the Registry of Deeds a few weeks ago with work to register leases and got told that they only do research there now and to go to the PRA. So I think the Registry of Deeds and the Land Registry are now both housed under the PRA umbrella, although they are still two distinct systems.

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Yeah you are correct. Registry of Deeds - Unregistered land, you go there to register deeds in relation to the land e.g. a mortgage. Land Registry = Registered land, all registered land has a folio which tells you all the interests/burdens.

Registry of Deeds isn't defunct as you can still register deeds for unregistered land.

However, if you bought a house on unregistered land I think you would have to register it in the Land Registry as there is compulsory registration in place now.

As to the actual process of how to register your land and get a folio, I don't know, but I don't think we need to know that for the purposes of FE1s, though I assume it involves going into the PRA with all your deeds etc and asking them to register it.

Sidenote, though I haven't seen this is any manual so I'm not sure, I went into the Registry of Deeds a few weeks ago with work to register leases and got told that they only do research there now and to go to the PRA. So I think the Registry of Deeds and the Land Registry are now both housed under the PRA umbrella, although they are still two distinct systems.

Thanks for all this, I went into this today thinking I already knew it and the more I read the more jumbled I thought I was getting so it's good to know I wasn't barking up the wrong tree and it's actually just a complex unwieldy system!

Pyggg

Does company involve topic mixing?

sapphire309

Would I be correct in saying that shares in Company tends to come up re: transfer of shares and directors' power to refuse to register a transfer? I feel like it's such a broad topic and looking to cut it down

Supreme!Fox

sapphire309 wrote: »

Would I be correct in saying that shares in Company tends to come up re: transfer of shares and directors' power to refuse to register a transfer? I feel like it's such a broad topic and looking to cut it down

I think so. I'm leaving out Capital Maintenance and Shareholder Meetings, with a lot of the latter topic in the Act anyway. And I only have brief notes on the Membership/Shares chapters.

I was thinking of leaving out Receivership too.

Would that be enough to cut for Company or are there anymore chapters that could be left out?

sapphire309

Supreme!Fox wrote: »

I think so. I'm leaving out Capital Maintenance and Shareholder Meetings, with a lot of the latter topic in the Act anyway. And I only have brief notes on the Membership/Shares chapters.

I was thinking of leaving out Receivership too.

Would that be enough to cut for Company or are there anymore chapters that could be left out?

I'm cutting out all the same as you have there, also cutting corporate authority and SAP because I don't have time

Kallyann1

Hi

If i have my notes done and have an understanding of them for Equity, would it be ok to leave all the learning until 4.5 days before?

Worried that i need to concentrate on my first 3!

nimcdona

Kallyann1 wrote: »

Hi

If i have my notes done and have an understanding of them for Equity, would it be ok to leave all the learning until 4.5 days before?

Worried that i need to concentrate on my first 3!

I feel like this is what i'm going to have to do, I've a chapter left to read and do notes on but then feel like I've have to leave learning equity equity until after.

Just worried because I've heard equity catches people out so hoping it won't be a mistake. But can get a lot done in 4 days I reckon.

Anything you're leaving out for equity actually or focusing more on?

Kallyann1

I think im going to leave out tracing and secret trusts!! and then try to have a broad understanding of the rest of the chapters ! I dont want to predict too heavily because it seemed to really mess people up in the last sitting! what about you?

bigtophat13

nimcdona wrote: »

I feel like this is what i'm going to have to do, I've a chapter left to read and do notes on but then feel like I've have to leave learning equity equity until after.

Just worried because I've heard equity catches people out so hoping it won't be a mistake. But can get a lot done in 4 days I reckon.

Anything you're leaving out for equity actually or focusing more on?

Kallyann1 wrote: »

I think im going to leave out tracing and secret trusts!! and then try to have a broad understanding of the rest of the chapters ! I dont want to predict too heavily because it seemed to really mess people up in the last sitting! what about you?

Equity is more quality than quantity it seems from the reports and the way she asks some questions quite specifically. 4.5 days should be manageable for the cram if you have an understanding.

And yes, cover as wide as you can as people badly got caught last time.

Amanda226

Hi all, just wondering what topics people are narrowing down tort to? Thanks!

nimcdona

Kallyann1 wrote: »

I think im going to leave out tracing and secret trusts!! and then try to have a broad understanding of the rest of the chapters ! I dont want to predict too heavily because it seemed to really mess people up in the last sitting! what about you?

Going to leave out secret trusts, purpose trusts and tracing and hopefully get the rest learnt as much as I can.

Yeah fair I heard that too about the last sitting, so will try avoid relying on any predictions too

BemusedKettle

Would this be enough to more than likely get by for Constitutional do ye think?

Separation of Powers
Property Rights
Constitutional Interpretation
Freedom of Expression, Assembly, Association
Religious Freedom
Judicial Review
Personal Rights
Family & Education

bigtophat13

BemusedKettle wrote: »

Would this be enough to more than likely get by for Constitutional do ye think?

Separation of Powers
Property Rights
Constitutional Interpretation
Freedom of Expression, Assembly, Association
Religious Freedom
Judicial Review
Personal Rights
Family & Education

It's quite close to what I'm prioritising. I think SOP, Property Rights, Judicial Review and Unconstitutionality are all very likely (just from my own study of past papers). Freedom of Expression is another near constant, and if it doesn't come up it wil be assembly or association in its place. Interpretation is another great one and while Family has been flogged to death that doesn't mean it won't be up again.

Amending the constitution is often quite popular too and president and AG were near constants til last one if you were looking to add another little bit.

Pyggg

Would anyone kindly have EU Direct Effect and Equality notes to send to me? Running desperately out of time trying to do 5 exams and would be so appreciative. Can send on notes on basically any other topic in EU, Criminal, Company, Equity and Contract. Also have sample answers. Thank you!!

LawGirl3434

Amanda226 wrote: »

Hi all, just wondering what topics people are narrowing down tort to? Thanks!

Really struggling with this too - just a huge topic. Finding it easier to narrow down constitutional which I never thought I’d say!

ErinLP44

Hi,

Im sitting Property and Company in 2 weeks and haven't bought any of the legislation yet.

So land act 2009
and the companies act 2014

Do most people buy from bloomsbury first hand?How much are people paying generally for this and how essential is it to bring in/ do most people use it?

So many questions there - but In the last exam sitting I didn't use any of the leg I brought in, so just wondering if it is really essential.

Thanks

BemusedKettle

ErinLP44 wrote: »

Hi,

Im sitting Property and Company in 2 weeks and haven't bought any of the legislation yet.

So land act 2009
and the companies act 2014

Do most people buy from bloomsbury first hand?How much are people paying generally for this and how essential is it to bring in/ do most people use it?

So many questions there - but In the last exam sitting I didn't use any of the leg I brought in, so just wondering if it is really essential.

Thanks

I didn't use the Company act which I brought in when I sat the exam, so from a practical point of view it wasn't worth much in that regard.

But I know that had I not brought it in and seen nearly every other table with a big fat green book placed on it my nerves would have been even more frayed. I'd recommend bringing one in just for that reason.

Most people borrow them or get them second hand, the exams are expensive enough as is without paying through the teeth for legislation.

bigtophat13

ErinLP44 wrote: »

Hi,

Im sitting Property and Company in 2 weeks and haven't bought any of the legislation yet.

So land act 2009
and the companies act 2014

Do most people buy from bloomsbury first hand?How much are people paying generally for this and how essential is it to bring in/ do most people use it?

So many questions there - but In the last exam sitting I didn't use any of the leg I brought in, so just wondering if it is really essential.

Thanks

I'm bringing in the LCLRA and the Succession Act for property just as it will be handy for remembering bits and pieces and I already have it, but it's not the be all and end all I don't think.

For company however it was a huge help for me as there are so many sections. I even answered a question I never intended to answer and basically had 5 cases as well as the act which I applied and it went great. It's a huge crutch. That being said I didn't buy it and it's mad money, I got a friend doing a masters to get it out from college for me so if possible do that. If not, you could in theory pick it up from a college book store shortly beforehand, keep your receipt and a lot of them have a no questions return policy, I know UL had 2 weeks which I used a few times. Write your number in pencil, tab to your hearts content, rub it out and untab and get your money back!

nimcdona

ErinLP44 wrote: »

Hi,

Im sitting Property and Company in 2 weeks and haven't bought any of the legislation yet.

So land act 2009
and the companies act 2014

Do most people buy from bloomsbury first hand?How much are people paying generally for this and how essential is it to bring in/ do most people use it?

So many questions there - but In the last exam sitting I didn't use any of the leg I brought in, so just wondering if it is really essential.

Thanks

I got the 2009 act and succession act from the government publications office they sent it out to me within 3 days of ordering it and it cost 17 all together so probably worthwhile getting those ones anyway just so no regrets on the day for a few handy definitions etc

Leraf

kasey0123 wrote: »

Trying to minimise the amount of topics for contract, company and Constitutional.

Does anyone have predictions for the above?
Planning on doing SLP, 2014 changes, shareholder protection, directors, restriction and disqual, liquidation, borrowing, examinership, duties arising in insolvency, SAP.

Constitucional: SEP of powers. Interpretation, property rights, equality, family, JR + Unconstitutionally, amending Constitution, freedom of expression.

Contract : offer and A, consideration, misrep, damages, consumer protection, discharge of contracts, exclusion clauses, warranties etc

I think you need to do Winding Up also for Company.

lawless11

My letter arrived. Hahah. Oh well, two weeks to learn it all! :pac:

Leraf

lawless11 wrote: »

My letter arrived. Hahah. Oh well, two weeks to learn it all! :pac:

This makes me sad

lisac223

Does anyone know if aggravated burglary a strict liability offence? So if the question states a weapon was brought “for protection” is this irrelevant? I asked my criminal lecturer but she didn't respond!

Also, would anyone have a sample answer for the short question on the influence of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004? My manual is all over the place on this section so I would be very grateful thank you!

JCormac

There's a part of Adverse possession (Property Law) that I just can't wrap my head around.

It's when the land owner has a future intended use for the land and the squatter knows of this intended use and does something with the land that's against the landowners future use, which then strengthens the case in favor of the Squatter - [The Leigh Principle I think]

Basically, am I right in thinking this is a sub requirement within the requirement for Dispossession?

If so, [Leigh v Jack] set out the principle which was followed in [Cork County Council v Lynch] but then in [Durack Manufacturing] the opposite conclusion was reached where it was not necessary that the squatters use of the land does not have to be inconsistent with the future use of landowners land. Durack was then backed up by a further case.

So, in short, does the Leigh Principle have to apply for a case of Adverse Possession to succeed? Because there are conflicting opinions in the courts about it and I have no idea.


If anyone is able to make sense out the above I'd be eternally grateful for some clarity on the courts interpretation of the Leigh Principle!

jazzypatty89

Does anyone happen to have an up to date company grid and/or the Oct 2018 Examiners report for Company?

Many thanks

I have plenty to trade!!

Leraf

jazzypatty89 wrote: »

Does anyone happen to have an up to date company grid and/or the Oct 2018 Examiners report for Company?

Many thanks

I have plenty to trade!!

I have the Report. You can PM your email and I will send it on

z6vm1dobfnca3x

JCormac wrote: »

There's a part of Adverse possession (Property Law) that I just can't wrap my head around.

It's when the land owner has a future intended use for the land and the squatter knows of this intended use and does something with the land that's against the landowners future use, which then strengthens the case in favor of the Squatter - [The Leigh Principle I think]

Basically, am I right in thinking this is a sub requirement within the requirement for Dispossession?

If so, [Leigh v Jack] set out the principle which was followed in [Cork County Council v Lynch] but then in [Durack Manufacturing] the opposite conclusion was reached where it was not necessary that the squatters use of the land does not have to be inconsistent with the future use of landowners land. Durack was then backed up by a further case.

So, in short, does the Leigh Principle have to apply for a case of Adverse Possession to succeed? Because there are conflicting opinions in the courts about it and I have no idea.


If anyone is able to make sense out the above I'd be eternally grateful for some clarity on the courts interpretation of the Leigh Principle!

In short, it remains to be seen which case is more persuasive between Leigh v Jack and Durack Manufacturing. It seems that we need a seminal case to settle this debate.

While Leigh v Jack focused on future intended use of the land as being the most important factor, in Durack Manufacturing the High Court placed importance on the intention of the squatter and not the intended future use of the P.

However, the future intended use of the property might still be relevant if the alleged squatter knew of it and as a result, intended to possess the land in the interim period only (lacking animus possidendi).

Hope this makes sense and please correct me if I am wrong!

bigtophat13

lisac223 wrote: »

Does anyone know if aggravated burglary a strict liability offence? So if the question states a weapon was brought “for protection” is this irrelevant? I asked my criminal lecturer but she didn't respond!

Also, would anyone have a sample answer for the short question on the influence of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004? My manual is all over the place on this section so I would be very grateful thank you!

I had never even considered whether it was SL and the absence of intentionally or recklessly would kind of suggest it is, but I wouldn't even comment on whether it's a strict liability offence in that question. I would just go about applying it to the facts and the fact that the law says if you bring the weapon in and it meets the weapon criteria you're guilty. You could say how it's irrelevant whether it's for use or not because it's viewed from the victim's perspective. It's so much higher an offence because you're going into someone's home, terrorising them and on top of that making them fear for their life. In the case of R v Bentham he pretended to have a gun through his pocket and it was considered aggravated so focus on the victim.

I'd just be inclined to avoid it as it would look bad to get it wrong and could make him question your knowledge/understanding.

Nothing for the Residential Properties one sorry.