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

AJM95

Gomzu wrote: »

On a scale of 1-10 how foolish is it to leave out winding up? I’ve already left out meetings, accounts, capital maintenance , corporate governance, receivership, examinership and probably 1/2 more....

Why is company law so boring :,(

Insolvency questions come up a lot

Supermax1988

Gomzu wrote: »

On a scale of 1-10 how foolish is it to leave out winding up? I’ve already left out meetings, accounts, capital maintenance , corporate governance, receivership, examinership and probably 1/2 more....

Why is company law so boring :,(

There's usually 1 of Receivership, Examinership, or Winding Up on the paper. Receivership came up last time so I'd say it Winding Up most likely this time round.

It could come up in a PQ with Protection for Minorities as well so I wouldn't leave it out.

lisac223

Would anyone know of a case dealing with defective products in tort where the instruction booklet requires a high level of English and the plaintiff has English as their second language? This was the October 2018 fact in issue so just want to cover myself!

TIA

JCormac

For Criminal would Conspiracy and Incitement (Both under Inchoate offenses) be worth doing?

I know Incitement can come up as an Essay question, but the chances of would be pretty slim?

jewels652

For criminal

Would I be safe not to cover public order offences??

Also would anybody know what is the pass rate for criminal and Eu?

lawless11

jewels652 wrote: »

For criminal

Would I be safe not to cover public order offences??

Also would anybody know what is the pass rate for criminal and Eu?

I think it's probably one of the safest chapters to leave out if anything.



EU is pretty high, around 70% I think.
No clue for Criminal.

vid36

Criminal is in high 60s but don't have time to go searching for the report with the figures.

JCormac

jewels652 wrote: »

For criminal

Would I be safe not to cover public order offences??

Also would anybody know what is the pass rate for criminal and Eu?

I'd have the definition under s3 Criminal Law (Public Order) Act 1994 learnt off just to be safe.

It isn't really a definition in the conventional sense but more of an list of the five (public/physical) areas that can be considered as being a 'Public place' under the act.

I'd also look at Intoxication in a Public Place + Offensive conduct + Threatening Behavior + Affray (though I'm not entirely sure about the last one)

The above seems like a lot but even just to glance over them be better than not doing it at all, specially since there's very little caselaw for them. (At least in my manual)

That's just my 2 cents. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong!


Regarding the pass-rates:

I second this. Can anyone confirm if there are pass-rates available?

The only one I recall seeing [for the four subjects I'm doing] in the Examiner reports was the one for Property 2018 (85%?); Hopefully that's not the only one.

z6vm1dobfnca3x

jewels652 wrote: »

For criminal

Would I be safe not to cover public order offences??

Also would anybody know what is the pass rate for criminal and Eu?

According to the March 2018 Examiner's Report:

EU: "pass rate has not fallen below 70% since October 2013."
Property: 85% pass rate.
Company: 68% pass rate.

A pass rate is not mentioned for the other subjects.

The lack of transparency with these exams is actually infuriating...

demarche

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

According to the March 2018 Examiner's Report:

EU: "pass rate has not fallen below 70% since October 2013."
Property: 85% pass rate.
Company: 68% pass rate.

A pass rate is not mentioned for the other subjects.

The lack of transparency with these exams is actually infuriating...

This might be useful!

z6vm1dobfnca3x

demarche wrote: »

This might be useful!

Thank you.

Where did you find this?

I have tried so many times to find that information.

bigtophat13

demarche wrote: »

This might be useful!

Had no idea that was available, thank you! Makes Tort and Constitutional all the less intimidating to see they're some of the highest pass rates!

demarche

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Thank you.

Where did you find this?

I have tried so many times to find that information.

It was published by the LSI in one of their reports late last year, possibly the Peart report?

Breacnua

demarche wrote: »

It was published by the LSI in one of their reports late last year, possibly the Peart report?

I don't know if this is gut wrenching or encouraging...

lawless11

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Had no idea that was available, thank you! Makes Tort and Constitutional all the less intimidating to see they're some of the highest pass rates!

It's nice to know indeed, but I guess it's still a third that fail! Glad I passed Equity before seeing these stats tho, omg, that one year of 48% felt savage even to read :eek:.

Freckley201

I thought contract pass right would be higher! I don't know if I feel better or worse

iamanengine

Freckley201 wrote: »

I thought contract pass right would be higher! I don't know if I feel better or worse

I think the contract examiner has a big pet peeve for people just throwing down all the information you know instead of applying only relevant information to the question at hand. I think that's a trap a lot of people fall into and I think they may even negatively mark you for that which catches a lot of people out!

Though now that I think of it it's possibly the Tort examiner who says this but really it applies across all subjects either way!

holliek

is article 37 of the Constitution the non-delegation doctrine

lawless11

holliek wrote: »

is article 37 of the Constitution the non-delegation doctrine

Art 37(.1) allows for non judicial bodies to have sort of almost-judicial proceedings, and there is a requirement for that non-judicial body to act judicially & safeguard fair procedures. It's a limited delegation of limited powers to these bodies.



(Anyone correct me if wrong)

holliek

lawless11 wrote: »

Art 37(.1) allows for non judicial bodies to have sort of almost-judicial proceedings, and there is a requirement for that non-judicial body to act judicially & safeguard fair procedures.



(Anyone correct me if wrong)

Yes I'm looking back over it and your right. Thank you!

So art 37 allows non-judicial bodies carry out judicial functions and non-delegation allows other bodies carry out legislative functions

holliek

Am I right in thinking the final decision in Bederev v Ire was that the Supreme court held the act was constitutional? Therefore, overruling the Court of Appeal decision?

Most google results don't have the Supreme court finding sop just want to make sure that I have it right

sapphire309

Is it necessary to learn the procedure by which shares are transferred, i.e. all about share certificates?

bigtophat13

holliek wrote: »

Am I right in thinking the final decision in Bederev v Ire was that the Supreme court held the act was constitutional? Therefore, overruling the Court of Appeal decision?

Most google results don't have the Supreme court finding sop just want to make sure that I have it right

https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/bederev-v-ireland-misuse-of-drugs-act-1977-is-constitutional-no-precedents-were-harmed/

Yup, they were pretty lenient with it imo

bigtophat13

holliek wrote: »

Yes I'm looking back over it and your right. Thank you!

So art 37 allows non-judicial bodies carry out judicial functions and non-delegation allows other bodies carry out legislative functions

Article 37 is to do with non judicial bodies carrying out judicial functions and the case law is typically centred around tribunals and disciplinary boards within fields - solicitors, doctors, gardai and nurses to name a few.

Legislation being delegated comes under 15.2 which vests the sole legislative power in the Oir, exceptions are made with the principles and policies test as per Cityview Press v AnCO. If you're filling in the areas left blank you're in the clear, if you're rewriting the law you're not. Good example was Cooke v Walsh where essentially the minister was using a section in the act to rewrite the act which was way out of bounds. I think (I don't remember fully) S72 allowed him to make regulations which he then did, in effect rewriting and changing S45, and the court held that was impermissable, however due to the doctrine of double construction and the fact they'll go out of there way not to call something uncon they held the regulations which were made were Uncon and that S 72 did not give that level of power rather than the whole act was Uncon!

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

I think the contract examiner has a big pet peeve for people just throwing down all the information you know instead of applying only relevant information to the question at hand. I think that's a trap a lot of people fall into and I think they may even negatively mark you for that which catches a lot of people out!

Though now that I think of it it's possibly the Tort examiner who says this but really it applies across all subjects either way!

For sure, I requested to get scans of all my exams. One question in contract was an ambling mess, huge amount of info terribly applied but really good info at that. Unfortunately had a lot of extra irrelevant stuff also. He wrote in the margin "Not relevant to the question" and then gave it a very pointed 9 I feel. That was an 8 page mess, a 4 page question I didn't feel confident on as I had less than half the cases as above got 13 or 14 and I thought it was nothing special, but it was totally concise and to the point, so if there's any tip for Contract I have it's that!

lawless11

Anyone could drop a line about the difference in due trial about illegally obtained evidence and unconstitutionally obtained evidence? Is there a difference? Or is it the same?

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

Anyone could drop a line about the difference in due trial about illegally obtained evidence and unconstitutionally obtained evidence? Is there a difference? Or is it the same?

In the very first case in the area O'Brien the court held that illegally obtained evidence would or would not be excluded at the discretion of the trial judge based on fairness etc.

Unconstitutionally obtained is far higher a bar as per O'Brien and where they breached the Constitutional right knowingly it was to be excluded with the exception of situations of emergency like risk of life such as in Dpp v Shaw.

Then you have the whole line of cases O'Brien - > Shaw - > Kenny -> Cash -> DPP v JC

holliek

bigtophat13 wrote: »

In the very first case in the area O'Brien the court held that illegally obtained evidence would or would not be excluded at the discretion of the trial judge based on fairness etc.

Unconstitutionally obtained is far higher a bar as per O'Brien and where they breached the Constitutional right knowingly it was to be excluded with the exception of situations of emergency like risk of life such as in Dpp v Shaw.

Then you have the whole line of cases O'Brien - > Shaw - > Kenny -> Cash -> DPP v JC

I've just focused on unconstitutionally obtained evidence and have all the above cases for that. Is illegally relevant?

JCormac

Anyone else banking on a Land Registration essay for Property?

iamanengine

JCormac wrote: »

Anyone else banking on a Land Registration essay for Property?

I am!