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

sapphire309

Does anybody have a sample answer for EU law - Q2 in March 2017? It is an essay question on 'equivalence' and 'practical possibility' and cites Pelati v Slovenia re: breaches of EU law? The question seems to have come up a number of times in recent years.

My manual doesn't reference the case, I am so lost

lawless11

Stupid question - in criminal law, assault & battery merged in one offence, but in tort the distinction in trespass to the person remains am I understanding it correctly (or just using an outdated tort manual?) ? Thanks.

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

Stupid question - in criminal law, assault & battery merged in one offence, but in tort the distinction in trespass to the person remains am I understanding it correctly (or just using an outdated tort manual?) ? Thanks.

You're understanding it correctly, very understandable question too, torts just lagged behind and kept them distinct. Suppose it makes sense as you have assault (causing harm) ((causing serious harm)) for criminal and whereas they're used to decide sentencing it's better to have a wide ambit in tort I guess?

lawless11

bigtophat13 wrote: »

You're understanding it correctly, very understandable question too, torts just lagged behind and kept them distinct. Suppose it makes sense as you have assault (causing harm) ((causing serious harm)) for criminal and whereas they're used to decide sentencing it's better to have a wide ambit in tort I guess?

I suppose yeah, thanks for the clarification!!

z6vm1dobfnca3x

Currently doing Property - Q1 - Spring 2017 question on Co-Ownership.

There's a few issues that I cannot wrap my head around:

- As a TIC, Paul is not bound by the right of survivorship and could therefore leave his undivided share in his will. If he were to die, would the beneficiary receive the interest as a TIC also?

- Although Alex moved out, is he still a JT? Or has he now become a TIC?

- On what basis are Matthew and Alex asking Paul to pay rent if he is already a TIC?

If anyone is willing to give their two cents I would be very grateful!

LawGirl3434

For Criminal - Trial in Due Course of Law

Could anyone clarify for me - do you have the right to have a solicitor present during interviews? I'm sure it's very obvious but just a bit muddled! My notes say DPP v Gormley indicated that this would be the case in the future, but on the Gardai Code of Practice I found this:


The law did not provide for a right to have a solicitor present during interview.
However, the Supreme Court indicated in the case of People (DPP) v Gormley
that, in the future, the Court is likely to find that an arrested person has a right to
have a lawyer present during Garda questioning. In light of the judgment in Gormley
it is necessary to allow a solicitor to be present at interview if requested by the
suspect. Furthermore, the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that all
suspects detained in Garda stations for questioning be advised, in advance of any
questioning, that they may request a solicitor to be present at interview.

z6vm1dobfnca3x

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

For Criminal - Trial in Due Course of Law

Could anyone clarify for me - do you have the right to have a solicitor present during interviews? I'm sure it's very obvious but just a bit muddled! My notes say DPP v Gormley indicated that this would be the case in the future, but on the Gardai Code of Practice I found this:


The law did not provide for a right to have a solicitor present during interview.
However, the Supreme Court indicated in the case of People (DPP) v Gormley
that, in the future, the Court is likely to find that an arrested person has a right to
have a lawyer present during Garda questioning. In light of the judgment in Gormley
it is necessary to allow a solicitor to be present at interview if requested by the
suspect. Furthermore, the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that all
suspects detained in Garda stations for questioning be advised, in advance of any
questioning, that they may request a solicitor to be present at interview.

According to the City Colleges manual:

Once arrested, an accused must merely be afforded reasonable access to a solicitor. It does not mean that questioning cannot begin until the solicitor arrives.

A solicitor does not even need to be present at any point, in person. A consultation over the phone will suffice.

bigtophat13

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Currently doing Property - Q1 - Spring 2017 question on Co-Ownership.

There's a few issues that I cannot wrap my head around:

- As a TIC, Paul is not bound by the right of survivorship and could therefore leave his undivided share in his will. If he were to die, would the beneficiary receive the interest as a TIC also?

- Although Alex moved out, is he still a JT? Or has he now become a TIC?

- On what basis are Matthew and Alex asking Paul to pay rent if he is already a TIC?

If anyone is willing to give their two cents I would be very grateful!

I remember looking at the same question but it's a little foggy now.

- If he was a TIC then yes, no survivorship so the beneficiary takes as TIC also, and if there were 2 they would get half each.

- It depends on the circumstances of moving out. If it's an out and out good luck and thanks which I think it was then wouldn't it become a TiC in equity if it was a JT in law? Severing the unity of possession? Also, if he were to no longer be a JT and the others were JTs to begin with, the others would remain as such in relation to one another.

- There's a line of cases on ouster and having to pay rent. I think it's Jones v Jones where they said you couldn't charge rent to another co-owner but for Dennis v McDonald where you were ousted, in that case by way of physical abuse (wife) you were entitled to something as you couldn't enjoy your co-owned property. In Re Thurgood they seemed to reduce the burden even further and allowed it for a threat of violence.

LawGirl3434

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

According to the City Colleges manual:

Once arrested, an accused must merely be afforded reasonable access to a solicitor. It does not mean that questioning cannot begin until the solicitor arrives.

A solicitor does not even need to be present at any point, in person. A consultation over the phone will suffice.

Thanks so much for getting back to me on this! Unfortunately I think I’m even more fried in which one I should go with! Could be worth stating what’s in the city manual and then just bringing clients attention to the above?

bigtophat13

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

For Criminal - Trial in Due Course of Law

Could anyone clarify for me - do you have the right to have a solicitor present during interviews? I'm sure it's very obvious but just a bit muddled! My notes say DPP v Gormley indicated that this would be the case in the future, but on the Gardai Code of Practice I found this:


The law did not provide for a right to have a solicitor present during interview.
However, the Supreme Court indicated in the case of People (DPP) v Gormley
that, in the future, the Court is likely to find that an arrested person has a right to
have a lawyer present during Garda questioning. In light of the judgment in Gormley
it is necessary to allow a solicitor to be present at interview if requested by the
suspect. Furthermore, the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that all
suspects detained in Garda stations for questioning be advised, in advance of any
questioning, that they may request a solicitor to be present at interview.

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

According to the City Colleges manual:

Once arrested, an accused must merely be afforded reasonable access to a solicitor. It does not mean that questioning cannot begin until the solicitor arrives.

A solicitor does not even need to be present at any point, in person. A consultation over the phone will suffice.

Yea it's a bit muddley at the moment, Gormley suggests the route its going and there were some EU cases - Salduz v Turkey and (I think but I'm not sure) Cadder v Her Majesty's Royal Advocate which suggest they may be entitled during, but it's not been shown yet. Just say that and you'll look good!

z6vm1dobfnca3x

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I remember looking at the same question but it's a little foggy now.

- If he was a TIC then yes, no survivorship so the beneficiary takes as TIC also, and if there were 2 they would get half each.

- It depends on the circumstances of moving out. If it's an out and out good luck and thanks which I think it was then wouldn't it become a TiC in equity if it was a JT in law? Severing the unity of possession? Also, if he were to no longer be a JT and the others were JTs to begin with, the others would remain as such in relation to one another.

- There's a line of cases on ouster and having to pay rent. I think it's Jones v Jones where they said you couldn't charge rent to another co-owner but for Dennis v McDonald where you were ousted, in that case by way of physical abuse (wife) you were entitled to something as you couldn't enjoy your co-owned property. In Re Thurgood they seemed to reduce the burden even further and allowed it for a threat of violence.

Nice one.

The manual doesn't seem to mention either of those cases or the paying of rent at all for that matter, so thanks a million for that.

I'm also seeing that under S. 30 (2) of the LCLRA 2009, the Court can make an order for accounting adjustments where co-owners have enjoyed different benefits or endured expenses. It seems that Matthew & Alex may be able to apply for an order (in lieu of rent) as Alex was not living in the property and Paul locked the living room door so I guess that neither of them could enjoy that room. Also breaks the unity of possession.

LawGirl3434

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Yea it's a bit muddley at the moment, Gormley suggests the route its going and there were some EU cases - Salduz v Turkey and (I think but I'm not sure) Cadder v Her Majesty's Royal Advocate which suggest they may be entitled during, but it's not been shown yet. Just say that and you'll look good!

Thanks so much

bigtophat13

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Nice one.

The manual doesn't seem to mention either of those cases or the paying of rent at all for that matter, so thanks a million for that.

I'm also seeing that under S. 30 (2) of the LCLRA 2009, the Court can make an order for accounting adjustments where co-owners have enjoyed different benefits or endured expenses. It seems that Matthew & Alex may be able to apply for an order (in lieu of rent) as Alex was not living in the property and Paul locked the living room door so I guess that neither of them could enjoy that room. Also breaks the unity of possession.

No worries, I went looking for them and found an obscure Australian academic paper from the 90s by chance so most manuals wouldn't have them!

That's putting some common law stuff into the law too, Wylie had a case - Re Pavlou - where they could claim for expenses in improving the property.

Another thing just came to my mind there, if he's locking doors and such would that be literal partition as well as breaking the unity of possession? Because that would sever both the JT by way of the lack of unity of possession as well as creating a partition over the property and thus totally terminating the Co-Ownership possibly? Or am I mad?

z6vm1dobfnca3x

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Another thing just came to my mind there, if he's locking doors and such would that be literal partition as well as breaking the unity of possession? Because that would sever both the JT by way of the lack of unity of possession as well as creating a partition over the property and thus totally terminating the Co-Ownership possibly? Or am I mad?

I know what you're getting at and it's a good question.

But does he have the right to partition the property in this way?

Prior to 2009, co-owners could voluntarily agree to partition - Clarke v Bodkin.

But post-2009, as per S. 30 of the LCLRA, he would need to obtain consent in writing from the other tenants in order to partition the property via acquisition or alienation. An order for partition can also be applied for under S.31 (2).

Even though his locking of the doors appears to break the unity of possession, I don't actually know what affect this has? That's why I was suggesting the order for accounting adjustments might be relevant.

If what you're saying is the case, then tenants could just act the flute and go around locking doors in an attempt to terminate.

I thought this question was handy at first but it's actually quite tricky!!! Would like to see one of the sample answers for it to see how City / Griffith approach it.

bigtophat13

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

I know what you're getting at and it's a good question.

But does he have the right to partition the property in this way?

Prior to 2009, co-owners could voluntarily agree to partition - Clarke v Bodkin.

But post-2009, as per S. 30 of the LCLRA, he would need to obtain consent in writing from the other tenants in order to partition the property via acquisition or alienation. An order for partition can also be applied for under S.31 (2).

Even though his locking of the doors appears to break the unity of possession, I don't actually know what affect this has? That's why I was suggesting the order for accounting adjustments might be relevant.

If what you're saying is the case, then tenants could just act the flute and go around locking doors in an attempt to terminate.

I thought this question was handy at first but it's actually quite tricky!!! Would like to see one of the sample answers for it to see how City / Griffith approach it.

Sorry yea I don't know what I'm saying. Ss 30-32 deal with all of that. The old law allowed for it to be unilateral and it was one of the more contentious issues in bringing the new law in. Wylie was all about it but Mee thought it was too much to require the consent as it could end up with a vulnerable person in an abusive relationship or an old person struggling to end it. That's why (I think they do anyway) the court can give an order to terminate it right?

Ah don't be getting disheartened or muddled. As long as you show you know the law and say "the law is X, how it will be applied will depend on whether the court think locking the door is breaking the JT by way of the cessation of unity of possession or as total termination of the coownership"

kasey0123

Hi!

For company I’m trying to cover:

Directors duties
SLP, SAP, 5 reforms
Fraudulent and reckless trading
Restriction
Transfer of shares
Examinership
Liquidation
Realization of coporate assets
Coporate borrowing.


Is there anything out of the above that I can leave out does anyone think?


Thanks, & what is everyone covering?!

b.anna

kasey0123 wrote: »

Hi!

For company I’m trying to cover:

Directors duties
SLP, SAP, 5 reforms
Fraudulent and reckless trading
Restriction
Transfer of shares
Examinership
Liquidation
Realization of coporate assets
Coporate borrowing.


Is there anything out of the above that I can leave out does anyone think?


Thanks, & what is everyone covering?!

Where did you find notes on SAP?

Gomzu

Can someone tell me what SAP and SLP mean in the context of company?

bigtophat13

Gomzu wrote: »

Can someone tell me what SAP and SLP mean in the context of company?

SLP - Separate legal personality, perhaps the backbone of company law

SAP - Summary Approval Procedure - A new aspect of the 2014 Act that allows more streamlined approval of certain actions which were complex before

sapphire309

Does anyone have notes on SAP they could pass on to me for Company? Will happily pass on notes for any other subject in return!

Freckley201

sapphire309 wrote: »

Does anyone have notes on SAP they could pass on to me for Company? Will happily pass on notes for any other subject in return!

https://www.mccannfitzgerald.com/uploads/Summary_Approval_Procedure.pdf

kasey0123

b.anna wrote: »

Where did you find notes on SAP?

I just googled it! Nothing special like just enough to get me by if I end up having to resort to it.. loads of good stuff on Dillon Eustace, Arthur Cox and McCanns website just short articles

lawdedaw

Hey everyone, I have a quick property question.

I noticed in the Adverse Possession questions, it is common for the facts to say that a subsequent AP-er is informed that the landowner has not been around for years and uses the property as his own.

This may be an obvious question but is there anything said about an Adverse Possessor who has knowledge like that? There may not be, but I just want to make sure I have all angles covered - thanks!!

lawless11

lawdedaw wrote: »

Hey everyone, I have a quick property question.

I noticed in the Adverse Possession questions, it is common for the facts to say that a subsequent AP-er is informed that the landowner has not been around for years and uses the property as his own.

This may be an obvious question but is there anything said about an Adverse Possessor who has knowledge like that? There may not be, but I just want to make sure I have all angles covered - thanks!!

From my recollection, it just counts for the overall adverse possession (by that, I mean that the successor in AP adds to the time of the 1st possessor). As long as he doesn't have consent from the owner etc. it doesn't change anything I think.

Freckley201

For TORT, Anyone know of an easy way to distinguish a nuisance/negligence question or would you always discuss both? There is a lot of overlap....

bigtophat13

Freckley201 wrote: »

For TORT, Anyone know of an easy way to distinguish a nuisance/negligence question or would you always discuss both? There is a lot of overlap....

I find them hard to distinguish on the real technical basis, but in problem questions they tend to phrase negligence as a single event whereas nuisance is usually continuous.

bigtophat13

For Occupier's Liability in Tort, the night before notes seem to say that the same level of care is owed to everyone now, Invitees, Trespassers and Recreational users, but I was under the impression (and the way the act reads to me) that a visitor (s3) is owed a reasonable duty of care whereas Trespassers and Recreational Users are the same level - S4 - Not to harm them or be reckless towards them.

Am I reading that wrong or perhaps missing something?

LawGirl3434

bigtophat13 wrote: »

For Occupier's Liability in Tort, the night before notes seem to say that the same level of care is owed to everyone now, Invitees, Trespassers and Recreational users, but I was under the impression (and the way the act reads to me) that a visitor (s3) is owed a reasonable duty of care whereas Trespassers and Recreational Users are the same level - S4 - Not to harm them or be reckless towards them.

Am I reading that wrong or perhaps missing something?

No I think your understanding is correct - I consulted the act directly because I read different things in different notes

LawGirl3434

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I find them hard to distinguish on the real technical basis, but in problem questions they tend to phrase negligence as a single event whereas nuisance is usually continuous.

Also I always find the nuisance questions tend to have something a little peculiar about them - really honing in on the interference with enjoyment element of the topic

LawGirl3434

Would anyone have any sample answers for SOP in constituional? Going to try to understand it once and for all today